After conferring on the issues identified in a Notice ofErrata and in the Motion to Adopt Third Amended Complaint, andhaving resolved the adoption of an efficient and practicalresolution to those issues, the Parties have reached an Agreementto adopt Exhibit 1 to the Motion to Adopt Third Amended Complaint,as identical to Exhibit 56 of the Notice of Errata, so that suchmay be the Third Amended Complaint, replacing the Second AmendedClass Action Complaint and Jury Demand.

This Agreement constitutes part of a greater resolution by theParties to facilitate the practical management of the case byamending the briefing schedule, in light of the Third AmendedComplaint, so as to allow Defendants reasonable time to respondand incorporate the corrections of the Notice of Errata.

ADAMA AGRICULTURAL: Class Suit Plaintiffs Appeal to Supreme Court-----------------------------------------------------------------Adama Agricultural Solutions Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Reportfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 10,2014, for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that theplaintiffs in a class action filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.

On July 24, 2011, a financial claim and a request for approval ofthe claim as a class action were received in the offices of Agan,which were filed by two residents of Moshav Nir Galim and aresident of Ashdod alleging damages caused due to odor and noisenuisances. To the extent the claim will be approved as a classaction, the plaintiffs assess that the amount claimed from Agan isabout NIS 642 million ($185 million). On December 8, 2013, adecision was rendered by the District Court in Be'er Shevarejecting the request for certification of the claim as a classaction and charging the plaintiffs for expenses. Subsequent to thedate of the statement of financial position, on February 10, 2014,the plaintiffs filed an appeal of the said court decision to theSupreme Court. In the Company's estimation, based on its legaladvisors, the chances the appeal will be accepted are less thanthe chances it will be rejected.

AMERICAN ADVISORS: Faces "Thompson" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT---------------------------------------------------------------Patrick Thompson, on behalf of himself and others similarlysituated v. American Advisors Group, Case No. 1:14-cv-03966 (N.D.Ga., December 13, 2014), is brought against the Defendant forfailure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the FairLabor Standard Act.

APPLE INC: Trial Begins in iPod Antitrust Suit----------------------------------------------Nick Statt and Shara Tibken, writing for CNET, report thatplaintiffs on Dec. 2 started outlining their case against Apple,saying in a courtroom here that the electronics giant kept iPodprices high by implementing unneeded software updates.

Because Apple wanted to hurt competitors and ban their music fromiTunes, it ended up harming consumers in the process, attorneysfor two plaintiffs in a class action antitrust lawsuit argued.

The trial, which is slated to last nine days, will decide analmost decade-old claim that Apple's MP3 players may have beenoverpriced while the company used its iTunes software to squashcheaper devices.

The crux of the case is a set of now-defunct policies that Appleinstituted in the earliest days of the iPod to control how andwhere users of iTunes and owners of its music players could playback purchased songs. The plaintiffs argue that Apple, inrestricting iPod owners to songs purchased only through iTunes andin banning songs from iTunes from playing on competing MP3players, the company stifled competition. That kept iPod pricesartificially high, the plaintiffs say.

"Apple made those changes to its software after top executives atApple learned that competitors had figured out a way to have theirsongs played on the iPod," Bonny Sweeney, the lead plaintiffs'lawyer, said on Dec. 2. "And there was a concern by Apple thatthis would eat into their market share."

Apple's lead attorney refuted those claims. "This insertion ofthe stranger in the middle could not get everything right. Itposed a danger to the consumer experience and to the quality ofthe product," William Isaacson said in defense of Apple's softwareupdates. Isaacson also pointed out that the plaintiffs' claim thatiPod prices were inflated happened to be at a time when iPodstorage increased while prices either fell or remained flat."There should be no damages here because prices went down andquality went up."

The plaintiffs, Melanie Wilson and Marianna Rosen, are seeking$350 million. Because of its class action status, the lawsuitcould award damages to as many as 8 million people who purchasedan iPod between September 12, 2006, and March 31, 2009. Applemarketing chief Phil Schiller and iTunes chief Eddy Cue are set totake the stand in the coming days, and the plaintiffs also willplay videotaped deposition from former CEO Steve Jobs, who died in2011.

This case is not Apple's first antitrust rodeo. The company,thanks to Mr. Jobs' often bullheaded business tactics, has beenembroiled in other high-profile cases concerning the iPhonemaker's competitive strategies and whether they stepped over theline. In 2010, Apple was accused of conspiring with other techfirms to fix employee wages to prevent competitors from recruitingtop talent from one another.

Two years later, Apple was accused of leading a charge in thee-book industry against Amazon, conspiring with the top US bookpublishers to fix prices of digital titles higher than Amazonwanted to sell them to consumers. Apple failed in its e-bookcrusade -- it may soon begin paying $400 million to as many as 23million e-book customers -- and a rejected settlement agreement inthe wage-fixing suit means Apple will face another antitrust trialin April.

The current case involving iPods is complex, having evolvedsignificantly since the original January 2005 filing. The suitinitially alleged that Apple broke the law by restricting ownersof its iPod to songs purchased only through iTunes. A courtdeemed that legal, however, and the plaintiffs have since alteredthe suit, alleging instead that Apple made a series of softwareupdates to iTunes specifically designed to shut out competingmusic stores' ability to load their songs onto iPods.

The case will aim to determine what effect Apple's FairPlaytechnology -- a so-called digital rights management tool that actslike a watermark made of code -- had on the market for MP3 playerswhen it restricted iPod owners to iTunes and how to interpretApple's behavior in protecting FairPlay using software updates.Apple refused to license FairPlay to competing music stores andwould not allow other MP3 players to connect to iTunes. Theplaintiffs lawyers will need to prove that Apple's actions were inviolation of Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act andCalifornia's Unfair Competition Law.

Apple says that competing online music stores like RealNetworks,which designed a specific tool called Harmony so that customerscould load its MP3s onto their iPods, were using the "ethics andtactics of a hacker." The crucial updates to Apple's iTunessoftware, numbered 7.0 and 7.4 and released in September 2006 andSeptember 2007, were designed not to block companies likeRealNetworks, Apple says, but to improve the user's experience andmaintain the security of its software.

The plaintiffs' argument, however, is that the updates "did notmake the iPod faster, improve sound quality, did not make the iPodsleeker or smaller or cooler," but "prevented customers who hadlegally purchased songs from Apple's competitors from playingthose songs on their iPod," Sweeney said.

Such "genuine product improvements," as they're called, wouldexempt a company's actions from being deemed anticompetitive.iTunes 7.0 is notable for introducing digital movie purchases tothe store. Mr. Jobs called it at the time "the most significantenhancement" to iTunes "since it debuted in 2001." Yet theupdates also contained specially designed code that would go sofar as to force users to reset their iPods if they were loadedwith unauthorized MP3 files, wiping the devices clean.

"These fixes were really directed at competitors -- it blew upeverything if you used a third-party player," said Roger G. Noll,a professor emeritus of economics at Stanford University and thefirst expert witness called by the plaintiffs on Dec. 2. "Thatwas Apple's fix."

Apple's Isaacson says the iTunes 7.0 and 7.4 updates were designedto improve security and purposefully keep third parties likeRealNetworks, which Apple still considers a hacker, out of itssystem. "Harmony was outdated when FairPlay was updated. AllApple was doing was updating FairPlay," he said. "That's whathappens when you reverse engineer the product and there's anupdate of that architecture."

Neither RealNetworks nor any of the retailers named in the suit,including Best Buy and Walmart, have filed suits of their own.RealNetworks executives will not appear as witnesses. Instead,the trial will hinge on the words of Jobs and other Appleexecutives on the architecture of FairPlay and iTunes developmentand expert testimony on both sides from university professors onthe strengths and weaknesses of the plaintiffs' antitrustargument.

Ultimately, the case will not impact Apple beyond the potentialmonetary damages. The company began offering DRM-free music inJanuary of 2009 and FairPlay is now used only to monitor thenumber of computers and other devices to which a user hasdownloaded a media file or mobile app. Music and other licensedmedia purchased from other companies like Amazon and Google cannow be played on Apple devices.

Yet more interesting is that the music landscape is nowdrastically different now than it was just seven years ago. TheiPod has been on a steady decline since 2008 -- smartphones havingdemolished the MP3 player business -- while digital musicdownloads have begun losing ground to subscription streamingservices like Spotify.

APPLE INC: Holiday Sale Cycle to Remain Strong Amid Class Action----------------------------------------------------------------Ritesh Anan, writing for Benzinga, reports that a decade-oldlawsuit against Apple Inc. has just gone for trial at a court inCalifornia and the Street is speculating how it's going to impactthe company in the long-run and what consequences it will have onthe company's stock.

Alex Gauna from JMP Securities was recently on CNBC to answerthose questions and the sales outlook for the company this holidayseason.

"It's exceptionally difficult to opine on how a trial like thiswill turn out. It's very clear to JMP Securities that Apple is aninnovative company, arguably the most innovative electronicscompany in the world," Gauna said.

"I personally believe that the company, back in time, was justpushing the technology forward as fast as it could to deliverbetter, in fact brilliant products to its consumers. I wouldexpect this trial to take some time, but what's really importantis that we are going to have, I think, a blockbuster holidayseason for Apple, not just in North America, but around theworld."

When asked whether this quarter is going to be exceptionallystrong for Apple, fueled by the iPhone 6, Gauna replied, "Whatappears to be on the table is a resurgence in share gains forApple. In some of our store checks, we're seeing stocks out forthe iPad minis and iPad 2 airs, we're seeing exceptionally strongdemand for both the iPhone 6 and the iPhone 6 Plus that remains inshort supply and we haven't even moved into the Chinese Lunar NewYear selling season abroad. So, I do believe, it's going to be avery strong holiday sale cycle for Apple."

U.S. District Judge Thomas Thrash Jr. granted in part and deniedin part the motion to dismiss filed by Atlas, finding among otherthings that plaintiff Noble Brooks satisfied the basic pleadingrequirements for his fraudulent concealment claim, and couldpursue it. Mr. Brooks had claimed that Atlas had "fraudulentlyrepresented that the shingles were manufactured in conformity withapplicable industry standards and building codes," both before andwhile it sold the product, according to the opinion.

Judge Thrash also found that Brooks' unjust enrichment claimshould be dismissed, saying that such claims cannot proceed ifthere is a contract at issue, and that the warranties that werepart of the sale of the shingles amounted to contracts.

"Under Mississippi law, '[t]o collect under an unjust enrichment. . . theory, the claimant must show there is no legal contract[and that] . . . the person sought to be charged is in possessionof money or property which in good conscience and justice heshould not retain, but should deliver to another,'" Judge Thrashsaid in his opinion. He applied Mississippi law, noting thatboth, Brooks and the defendant are citizens of the state.

Mr. Brooks had filed his suit in Mississippi, but his suit wastransferred in January to federal court in Georgia, where themultidistrict litigation over the allegedly defective shingles isconsolidated.

The MDL, which was created in December, consolidated six productliability cases over the shingles from federal courts in Alabama,Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Ohio and Tennessee.

The suits revolve around claims that Atlas made in the 30-yearwarranty that it provides, that its products would be "free frommanufacturing defects," according to Brooks' amended complaint,filed in March.

Despite these assurances, the shingles are prone to moisture,because of the way they are manufactured, according to Brooks, whoclaims that the shingles contain gas bubbles that expand in heatand cause them to crack or blister. He also claimed that Atlashad treated warranty claims inconsistently, rejecting some, whilesettling others for too low a price, according to his complaint.

The case is Noble L. Brooks, Jr. v. Atlas Roofing Corp., casenumber 1:14-cv-1, in the U.S. District Court for the NorthernDistrict of Georgia. The MDL is In re: Atlas Roofing Corp. ChaletShingle Products Liability Litigation, case number 1:13-md-02495,both in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District ofGeorgia.

Plaintiffs Javier Hernandez and his sister Brenda Hernandez werethe owners of real property who secured a deed of trust originallyto Countrywide Bank which was subsequently owned by Bank ofAmerica as successor. Thereafter, a trustee sale was conductedwith the property.

Plaintiffs alleged that after the sale, they were threatened withdeportation if they refused to vacate the Property and eventuallytheir father was deported. Thus, Plaintiffs formed and joined theOccupy Fights Foreclosures ("OFF") group and made meetings anddemonstrations, including events at Ms. Corona's home and at theProperty.

Plaintiffs further alleged that despite having no valid search orseizure warrant of the Property, the Los Angeles Police Department("LAPD") officers monitored OFF and its members events andprotests through social media by showing up at the events,removing signs placed on the Property as part of the protests anddemanding identification of those present for purposes of sharingthe identities of the protestors with Bank of America. Also,Javier Hernandez was forced to sign a storage rental agreementwith Public Storage and pay $250.00 in order to see his personalproperty again and that upon gaining access to his belongings, hediscovered that much of the property was damaged or missing.

Defendants argued that Plaintiffs' claim fails because their entryonto the Property and seizure of personal property therein wasentirely lawful, as they assert that Plaintiffs no longer had aninterest in the Property. Further, Defendants argued that therewas no joint action.

Defendants did not challenge that Plaintiffs' activities at OFFprotests was protected activity. However, Defendants argued thatthey have done nothing that would chill speeches and that thoseacts were not motivated by a desire to chill speeches.

Judge Pregerson denied Bank of America's Motion to Dismiss byruling that Plaintiff have alleged sufficient facts andallegations to support a plausible claim that their right wasviolated. LAPD and Bank of America essentially worked together toeffect foreclosures on those individuals who were activeparticipants in the OFF movement. The fact that multipleindividuals were locked out within a short period of time aftersuch protests further supports the conclusion that the lock-outswere intended to quell further protests against Bank of Americaand the foreclosure process.

Judge Pregerson also noted that Bank of America allegedly usedinformation provided by LAPD to selectively evict those homeownerswho participated in the protests. This alleged scheme, jointlyperformed by LAPD and Bank of America, would certainly chill aperson of ordinary firmness from continuing to protest.

In addition, even if Bank of America had a right to possession ofthe Property and a right to remove personal property from theProperty, the arrangement which require Plaintiffs to either pay ahigh rental fee or potentially lose their belongings forever canbe characterized as oppressive and substantially injurious to theowners of such property.

A copy of the Order dated November 6, 2014, is available atbit.ly/1xMjLKR from Leagle.com.

Roes, 4 through 10 on behalf of themselves and all otherssimilarily situated, Plaintiff, represented by Lenore L Albert --lenorealbert@msn.com -- Law Offices of Lenore L Albert.

BILL COSBY: Moritz No Plan to Get Other Women to Join Suit----------------------------------------------------------Radar Online reports that the mountain of sexual assault claimsfacing Bill Cosby took on even greater weight, when it wasreported that a group of his victims were preparing a class actionlawsuit against the comedian. But alleged victim Louisa Moritz,best known for playing Rose in One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest,tells RadarOnline.com exclusively that the online report wasfalse, and she has no plans to get other Cosby accusers on boardfor a court battle.

Ms. Moritz, 68, is a licensed California lawyer in addition to herlong acting career. While denying that a class action suit was inthe works, she would not rule out the possibility of some legalaction in the future, undertaken by her individually. "Whoknows?" she said, unwilling to tip her hand to Cosby's lawyers.

Ms. Moritz alleges that she was sitting alone in her dressing roombefore a taping for The Tonight Show in 1971 when the door openedand it was Cosby. He "implied that he was going to see to it thatI will become a major star through his direction," according toher written statement released by her publicist.

Mr. Cosby "suddenly approached me and took out his penis, whichwas now in the line of my face and pressed up against it," sheclaims. "He took his hands and put them on the back of my headand forced his penis in my mouth, saying, 'Have a taste of this.It will do you good in so many ways.'"

Ms. Moritz did not report the incident to police.

On Nov. 21, Mr. Cosby's attorney Martin D. Singer denied theclaims of sexual assault against Mr. Cosby: "The new, never-before-heard claims from women who have come forward in the pasttwo weeks with unsubstantiated, fantastical stories about thingsthey say occurred 30, 40, or even 50 years ago have escalated farpast the point of absurdity."

The alleged sexual assault was not Mr. Cosby's only allegedoffense that night 43 years ago, Ms. Moritz tells Radar.

Just minutes after Mr. Cosby forced his penis into her mouth, heclaims he upstaged her by walking out when Johnny Carsonintroduced her in the NBC studio, stealing her big laugh, shesays.

"I'm sure he thought it was funny, because everything he does hethinks is funny," Ms. Moritz tells Radar. Mr. Cosby added insultto injury by imitating her unusual voice, getting "a big laugh"pretending to be her, on the talk show, she says, claiming, "Afterthe assault, he hadn't done enough."

Along with a public apology to her and other women who claim Cosbysexually assaulted them, "he needs to explain why he went on whenmy name was called," Ms. Moritz says.

BROTHERS B PAINTING: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Serrano" Suit Says-----------------------------------------------------------------Jose Serrano, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated v.Brothers B Painting, LLC, A Georgia Limited Liability Company, andOmar Betancur, Case No. 1:14-cv-03960 (N.D. Ga., December 12,2014), is brought against the Defendants for failure to payovertime wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a painting business in GwinnettCounty, Georgia.

CHEF'S TABLE: Faces Wage Theft Class Action in New York-------------------------------------------------------Marguerite Preston, writing for New York Eater, reports thatMaimon Kirschenbaum, the legal thorn in the restaurant industry'sside, sends word on Dec. 1 of a new class action lawsuit he's justfiled against Cesar Ramirez and Moe Issa, the chef and proprietorof the Michelin-starred Chef's Table at Brooklyn Fare. The suitinvolves five plaintiffs, including one sous chef, one prep cook,and several servers, who are leveling multiple allegations of wagetheft and discrimination against the acclaimed tasting counter.

For starters, the servers claim that they didn't receive any ofthe 20 percent service charge that the restaurant charges dinersin lieu of a tip. They also claim that when diners leftadditional tips, the owners withheld "significant portions" ofthose. All the plaintiffs also claim they worked varying degreesof overtime -- often 10 hours a day for as much as six days aweek -- without being paid overtime rates.

On top of all that, one server has also come forward with someserious accusations of racism against Ramirez. Emi Howard, whoherself is Asian American, claims that the chef "routinelyreferred to Asian customers as 'shit people.'" She also says hedemanded that Asians not be seated near his station at thecounter, and that he instructed her to give them the worst piecesof meat from any large piece that had to be broken down fordiners. That last treatment, apparently, was also reserved for"Upper West Siders."

The former employees are suing the restaurant for an unspecifiedamount, equal to their lost wages plus damages. Eater has reachedout to the Brooklyn Fare team for comment, but is still awaiting aresponse.

Moe Issa responds with the following statement: "To clarify, ouroffices have no knowledge of a lawsuit other than what has beenposted without documentation on-line. No lawyer has contacted myoffice or I with regards to any lawsuit.

At Brooklyn Fare, we pride ourselves on the diversity of our staffwho hail from around the globe, and we welcome everyone who comesthrough our doors with open arms, be it a guest, vendor, oremployee, regardless of their creed, religion, ethnicity, sexualorientation, or nationality. We pay all of our staff fair wagesfor their hours worked as well as gratuity in accordance to thelaw."

CHEN & JIANG: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime------------------------------------------------------------Zhong Xian Chen, indivdually and on behalf of all other employeessimilarly situated v. Chen & Jiang Sushi Inc., d/b/a Akari Sushiand Japanese Food, Stella Xiaoyu Jiang and John Does and Jane Does#1-10, Case No. 1:14-cv-09827 (S.D.N.Y., December 12, 2014), isbrought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wagesfor work performed in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a Japanese restaurant located at 35Main Street, Poughkeepsie, New York 12601

CHRISTIAN BROTHERS: Dismissal of Child Migration Suit Affirmed--------------------------------------------------------------Ben Bedell, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed dismissal ofa case brought against Catholic Church entities by plaintiffs,originally from Europe, who alleged they had been tricked aschildren into going to Australia in the 1940s in an effort topopulate it with "pure white stock."

The unanimous Dec. 8 decision in Ellul v. Christian Brothers,11-1682-cv, held that the suit, brought under the Alien TortStatute, had to be dismissed on jurisdictional grounds after theU.S. Supreme Court ruling in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co.,133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013), applying the presumption against theextraterritorial application of U.S. law to claims under thestatute.

"The actions that form the basis of this case occurred far fromthe United States and many decades ago," said Judge Lynch, citingstatute of limitations grounds as an additional basis fordismissal.

When the three plaintiffs were aged 14, 10 and 8, "defendantsallegedly took them away from their families, falsely told themthat their parents had died or abandoned them, and transportedthem to Australia, where plaintiffs and other children were madeto work essentially as slaves," Judge Lynch said.

According to "Lost Innocents: Righting the Record: Report on ChildMigration," a 2001 report of an Australian governmentinvestigation, the plaintiffs were part of a "child migration"effort that spanned four centuries, beginning in 1618 when thefirst group of destitute children were sent from the UnitedKingdom to Richmond, Virginia.

Between 100,000 and 180,000 children were sent from Britain to theAmerican colonies, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Rhodesia, SouthAfrica and the Caribbean from the 17th century to the mid-1960s,according to the report, which was cited in the opinion.

Most were abandoned youth taken from the orphanages, homes,workhouses and reformatories in the United Kingdom. Although thepractice had died out in most other countries, in the post-WorldWar II era, Australia sought 30,000 new child migrants, who werereceived mostly by Catholic institutions that were paid governmentstipends for each child migrant, the report said.

The 2001 report said investigators had been informed that only afew people had been convicted of criminal activity in the childmigrant scheme.

Civil suits in Australia have been stymied by statutes oflimitations, the report said. However, in 1996 an out-of-courtsettlement was reached with the Christian Brothers, who paid $5million, of which $1.5 million went to legal costs. Payments toplaintiffs ranged from AUS$4,000 to AUS$25,000, the report said.Involuntary Servitude

The plaintiffs in Ellul, who were swept up in the post-warAustralian child migration efforts, sued the U.S. affiliates ofvarious Australia Catholic orders in the Southern District in2009, alleging violations of customary international law,including slavery and involuntary servitude, child trafficking,forced child labor, and cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment.Their complaint said that in 1946 Emmanuel Ellul and his brotherswere taken from Malta to a commercial farm in Western Australiaoperated by the Congregation of Christian Brothers.

His parents were told that he would be educated in Australia, buthe was not given any schooling.

"The children at the farm performed unpaid physical labor fromearly morning until nightfall, were frequently beaten andthreatened with physical violence, and were told that theirparents were dead," Judge Lynch said, referring to the allegationsin the complaint.

Valerie Carmack's mother was told that Carmack, who is now a U.S.citizen, had been adopted by another family in Britain, but infact she had been sent to Australia in 1946.

Hazel Goulding was sent from Britain to Australia in 1947 and madeto work long hours for no pay and received virtually no education,she alleged.

She lived at an institution run by nuns who allegedly were part ofthe defendant Order of the Sisters of Mercy. The nuns routinelybeat and starved their wards, the complaint said.

In 2011, Southern District Judge Paul Crotty dismissed the casemainly on statute of limitations grounds.

The Alien Tort Statute, enacted in 1789, allows for a "civilaction by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of thelaw of nations or a treaty of the United States."

The appellate opinion noted the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled inSosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 724 (2004) that claimsunder "the present-day law of nations" could be brought, so longas the claims "rest on a norm of international character acceptedby the civilized world."

Judge Lynch said the panel "accepted without deciding" that theplaintiffs' claims met that standard.

But the circuit panel held that the Supreme Court ruled in Koibel,that unless the conduct complained of "touches and concerns theterritory of the U.S." an an alient tort claim could not bemaintained.

Judge Lynch held that standard was not met in Ellul. He wasjoined in the ruling by Judges Guido Calabresi and Raymond Lohier.

COBALT INTERNATIONAL: Faces Securities Class Action in Texas------------------------------------------------------------Pomerantz LLP on Dec. 2 disclosed that a class action lawsuit hasbeen filed against Cobalt International Energy, Inc. and certainof its officers. The class action, filed in United StatesDistrict Court, Southern District of Texas, is on behalf of aclass consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Cobaltsecurities between February 21, 2012 and November 4, 2014,inclusive including persons who purchased or otherwise acquired:(i.) Cobalt securities on the open market; (ii.) Cobalt's commonstock pursuant and/or traceable to registered public offeringsconducted on or about February 23, 2012, January 16, 2013 andMay 8, 2013; and/or (iii.) Cobalt's 2.65% Convertible Senior Notesdue 2019, pursuant and/or traceable to the registered publicoffering conducted on or about December 12, 2012, and/or CobaltConvertible Senior Notes due 2024, pursuant and/or traceable tothe registered public offering conducted on or about May 8, 2014.

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants foralleged violations of the federal securities laws under theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a shareholder who purchased Cobalt securities duringthe Class Period, you have until February 2, 2015 to ask the Courtto appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class. A copy of theComplaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com To discuss thisaction, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, x237. Those whoinquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

Cobalt is engaged in the exploration and production of oil-focusedand below-salt exploration prospects.

The Complaint alleges that during the Class Period, Cobalt andcertain of its senior executives violated provisions of theExchange Act by issuing materially false and misleading pressreleases, filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission, andstatements during investor conference calls. The Complaint alsoalleges that in connection with the Offerings, the Company issuedsecurities pursuant to materially misstated filings with the SEC.As alleged in the Complaint, Cobalt has portrayed itself as acompany with "world class," "large" and "oil-focused" wells in theRepublic of Angola and claimed that the Company gained access tothose wells in compliance with the U.S. law outlawing the briberyof foreign officials (the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act or"FCPA"). In truth, Cobalt obtained access to its Angolan wellsfrom the Republic of Angola by partnering with shell companies inAngola that were partially owned by high-level Angolan officials,putting the Company at serious risk of enforcement action by theSEC and U.S. Department of Justice for violations of the FCPA andthe federal securities laws. In addition, Cobalt misrepresentedthe value of its wells in Angola after the Company learned thatthey contained very little or no oil.

As a result of the Company's statements to investors, the pricesof Cobalt's stock and bonds were artificially inflated during theClass Period. Investors first began to learn the truth when: (i.)on December 1, 2013, the Company revealed negative results fromits Lontra well; (ii.) on August 5, 2014, Cobalt announced thatthe SEC had escalated its then-ongoing investigation of theCompany for possible violations of the federal securities laws byissuing Cobalt a Wells Notice; and (iii.) on November 4, 2014,Cobalt disclosed negative results regarding its Loengo well.On this news, shares of Cobalt fell $1.31 per share, orapproximately 11.51%, to close at $10.07 per share on November 4,2014.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and San Diego, ThePomerantz Firm-- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrustclass litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, knownas the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneeredthe field of securities class actions. Today, more than 70 yearslater, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition heestablished, fighting for the rights of the victims of securitiesfraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. TheFirm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards onbehalf of class members.

The class action lawsuit alleges that DFA and its co-conspiratorsengaged in a conspiracy to control the supply of raw farm milk("farm milk"), thereby inflating the prices of milk and freshdairy products in violation of the Missouri MerchandisingPractices Act. The lawsuit further alleges defendant and its co-conspirators agreed to and did in fact conspire and overchargedirect and indirect purchasers in Missouri, such as Plaintiffs andClass Members, by intentionally inflating the price of farm milksold during the time period January 1, 2004 through the present.Defendant DFA denies these allegations.

The lawsuit alleges that the defendant's activities constitute anunfair practice in connection with the sale of farm milk and freshdairy products made from farm milk in the State of Missouri. Thislawsuit is brought as a class action on behalf of all persons andentities in Missouri, exclusive of Defendant and its co-conspirators, (and their respective officers, employees, agents,representatives, parent companies, subsidiaries and affiliates),that purchased farm milk and fresh dairy products indirectly fromthe Defendant in the State of Missouri during the Class Period.

In signing the certification order, the Court ordered that thelawsuit shall be maintained as a class action under Rule 52.08 onbehalf of the Plaintiff class that includes: all Missouri citizensthat indirectly purchased in Missouri milk and fresh dairyproducts produced or supplied by DFA primarily for personal,family or household purposes, and not for resale, at any time fromJanuary 1, 2004 to the present. Excluded from the class aregovernmental entities or agencies, Defendant or any of theirrepresentatives, parents, affiliates, subsidiaries, predecessorsor successors in interest, and Defendant's co-conspirators.

Plaintiff Brazil is a California consumer who cares about thenutritional content of food and seeks to maintain a healthy dietwhile Defendant Dole Packaged Foods, LLC, is a limited liabilitycorporation and a leading producer of retail food products thatsells to consumers through grocery and other retail stores aproduct specifically labeled with "All Natural Fruits".

Brazil alleged that Dole made numerous representations on thelabels of its products which are mislabeled, false and misleading,and misbranded in violation of federal and state law. Brazilfurther alleged that Dole's products contained artificialingredients and flavorings, artificial coloring and chemicalpreservatives. Specifically, Brazil contended that all of theproducts labeled with "All Natural Fruit" were misleading becauseall contained ascorbic acid (commonly known as Vitamin C) andcitric acid, both allegedly synthetic ingredients.

Brazil filed a Motion for Class Certification which was eventuallygranted by the court. In granting class certification, the Courtrelied on Dr. Capps' representation that he would be conductingbefore-and-after analysis once Dole provided him the necessarydiscovery.

On the other hand, Dole filed its Motion to Decertify by arguingthat the Damages Class certified under Rule 23(b)(3) should bedecertified because Dr. Capps' Regression Model is fundamentallyflawed, thereby rendering it incapable of measuring only thosedamages attributable to Dole's alleged misbranding and that theDamages Class, as well as the Injunction Class certified underFed.R.Civ.Proc. Rule 23(b)(2), should be decertified becauseneither is ascertainable.

In his Order granting in part and denying in part Dole's Motion toDecertify, District Judge Lucy H. Koh agreed with Dole that Brazilfailed to show how the Regression Model controls for othervariables affecting price. Thus, Brazil has not met his burden toshow that the model he proposes is capable of controlling for allother factors and isolating the price premium attributable toDole's "All Natural Fruit" label only.

Accordingly, because Brazil's proposed damages model fails toprovide a means of showing damages on a classwide basis throughcommon proof, the Court concludes that Brazil has not satisfiedthe Rule 23(b)(3) requirement that common issues predominate overindividual ones. The Court must therefore decertify the DamagesClass.

In his Order, the Court certifies the following class under Rule23(b)(2): "All persons in the United States who, from January 1,2009, until the date of notice, purchased a Dole fruit productbearing the front panel label statement `All Natural Fruit' butwhich contained citric acid and ascorbic acid. Excluded from theclass are (1) Dole and its subsidiaries and affiliates, (2)governmental entities, and (3) the Court to which this case isassigned and its staff."

Pursuant to the proposed accord, the parties agree to a grosssettlement totaling $2,300,000. Defendants El Rancho and Garzaagree to fund the Settlement. Defendants will pay $100,000 to theClaims Administrator within ten days of preliminary approval ofthe class settlement, and pay the remainder no later than January31, 2015.

The class is defined as: All persons who have been employed orjointly employed by farm labor contractor Garza Contracting, Inc.at El Rancho facilities between November 9, 2001 and June 11,2014.

Margarita Rosales, Lorena Corza, Angel Lopez Cruz, and AngelicaAlvarez are appointed the Class Representatives for the SettlementClass. Stan Mallison and Hector Martinez are appointed ClassCounsel. Gilardi and Co., LLC is appointed as the SettlementAdministrator, with responsibilities pursuant to the terms setforth in the Settlement Agreement.

The Class Representative enhancement requests for Plaintiffs aregranted preliminarily up to the amount of $10,000, subject to apetition and review at the final approval and fairness hearing.

Class Counsel's request for fees of not to exceed 33 1/3% of thegross settlement amount and costs up to $50,000 is grantedpreliminarily, subject to counsel's petition for fees and reviewat the Final Approval and Fairness Hearing.

The petition for attorneys' fees and for class representativeenhancement fee must be filed no later than February 27, 2015.

Costs of settlement administration shall not exceed $30,000.

The Settlement Administrator must mail the approved Class NoticePacket no more than December 22, 2014. Any Class Member whosubmits a timely and valid Claim Form on or before February 13,2015 will receive a settlement share.

A class member who wishes to be excluded from settlement mustpostmark the Opt-Out Form no later than February 13, 2015. Anyobjections to or comments on the Settlement Agreement must befiled with the Court and mailed to Class Counsel no later thanFebruary 13, 2015.

According to the preliminary approval of the settlement, copies ofwhich are available at http://is.gd/bO3sDjand http://is.gd/Bd6Nbafrom Leagle.com, the determination of the cy pres beneficiary isnot ripe for decision.

A Final Approval and Fairness Hearing is set for March 20, 2015,at 9:00 a.m. at the United States Courthouse located at 510 19thStreet, Bakersfield, California. At this hearing, the Court willdetermine whether the Settlement should be granted final approvalas fair, reasonable, and adequate as to the class members.

The Court reserves the right to vacate the Final Approval andFairness Hearing if no comments or objections are filed with theCourt on or before February 13, 2015.

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 25,000 Mesh Cases Currently Pending-------------------------------------------------------Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of November 3,2014, approximately 25,000 filed vaginal mesh cases are currentlypending against AMS and/or the Company or certain of itssubsidiaries, some of which may have been filed on behalf ofmultiple plaintiffs, and a minority of which seek class actioncertification.

Since 2008, AMS, and more recently, in certain cases the Companyor certain of its subsidiaries, have been named as defendants inmultiple lawsuits in various federal and state courts, as well asin Canada, Scotland, the UK and the Netherlands alleging personalinjury resulting from the use of transvaginal surgical meshproducts designed to treat POP and SUI. Plaintiffs in these suitsallege various personal injuries including chronic pain,incontinence and inability to control bowel function and permanentdeformities.

On February 7, 2012, a multidistrict litigation (MDL) was formed,and cases pending in federal courts are now consolidated in theSouthern District of West Virginia as part of MDL No. 2325.Similar cases in various state courts around the country are alsocurrently pending.

As of November 3, 2014, approximately 25,000 filed mesh cases arecurrently pending against AMS and/or the Company or certain of itssubsidiaries, some of which may have been filed on behalf ofmultiple plaintiffs, and a minority of which seek class actioncertification. In addition, other cases have been served upon AMSpursuant to a tolling agreement order issued in the MDL in May2013. Any complaint properly served on AMS from the effective dateof that order on May 15, 2013 through October 1, 2013, andultimately filed with the court by February 14, 2014 is deemedfiled as of the service date. Some of these cases served pursuantto the tolling agreement have been timely filed with the court.Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought byother plaintiffs in various jurisdictions. The majority of thecurrently pending cases are in the MDL. The Company cannot predictthe ultimate number of cases to be filed against it withcertainty.

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Entered Into MSAs to Fix 41,700 Mesh Claims---------------------------------------------------------------Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of September30, 2014, AMS and certain plaintiffs' counsel representing mesh-related product liability claimants have entered into variousMaster Settlement Agreements (MSAs) regarding settling up toapproximately 41,700 filed and unfiled mesh claims handled orcontrolled by the participating counsel. These MSAs, which wereexecuted at various times from June 14, 2013 through September 30,2014, were entered into solely by way of compromise and settlementand are not in any way an admission of liability or fault by theCompany or AMS.

The following table presents the changes in the vaginal meshQualified Settlement Funds accounts and product liability balanceduring the nine months ended September 30, 2014 (in thousands):

Approximately $728.2 million of the total liability amount shownabove is expected to be paid by September 30, 2015 and isclassified as Accrued expenses in the September 30, 2014 CondensedConsolidating Balance Sheet, with the remainder to be paid overtime and classified as Other liabilities in the September 30, 2014Condensed Consolidating Balance Sheet. AMS expects to fund thepayments under all settlement agreements by December 31, 2017.

As the funds are disbursed out of the Qualified Settlement Fundsaccounts from time to time, the product liability accrual will bereduced accordingly with a corresponding reduction to restrictedcash and cash equivalents. Amounts included in the QualifiedSettlement Funds are included in Restricted cash and cashequivalents in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets.

All MSAs discussed above are subject to a process that includesguidelines and procedures for administering the settlements andthe release of funds and have participation thresholds requiringparticipation by the vast majority of claims represented by eachlaw firm. If certain participation thresholds are not met, thenAMS will have the right to terminate the settlement with that lawfirm. In addition, one agreement gives AMS a unilateral right ofapproval regarding which claims may be eligible to participateunder that settlement. To the extent fewer claims than areauthorized under an agreement participate, the total settlementpayment under that agreement will be reduced by an agreed-uponamount for each such non-participating claim. Distribution offunds to any individual claimant is conditioned upon a fullrelease and a dismissal of the entire action or claim as to allAMS parties and affiliates. Prior to receiving funds, anindividual claimant shall represent and warrant that liens,assignment rights, or other claims that are identified in theclaims administration process have been or will be satisfied bythe individual claimant. The amount of settlement awards toparticipating claimants, the claims evaluation process andprocedures used in conjunction with award distributions, and thenegotiations leading to the settlement shall be kept confidentialby all parties and their counsel.

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 600 MCP Cases Currently Pending---------------------------------------------------Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of November 3,2014, approximately 600 MCP cases, some of which may have beenfiled on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, are currently pendingagainst Qualitest Pharmaceuticals and/or the Company.

Qualitest Pharmaceuticals, and in certain cases the Company orcertain of its subsidiaries, along with several otherpharmaceutical manufacturers, have been named as defendants innumerous lawsuits in various federal and state courts allegingpersonal injury resulting from the use of the prescriptionmedicine metoclopramide. Plaintiffs in these suits allege variouspersonal injuries including tardive dyskinesia, other movementdisorders and death. Qualitest Pharmaceuticals and the Companyintend to contest all of these cases vigorously and to exploreother options as appropriate in the best interests of the Companyand Qualitest Pharmaceuticals.

"Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought byother plaintiffs in various jurisdictions. However, we cannotpredict the timing or outcome of any such litigation, or whetherany additional litigation will be brought against the Company orits subsidiaries," the Company said.

As of November 3, 2014, approximately 600 MCP cases, some of whichmay have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, arecurrently pending against Qualitest Pharmaceuticals and/or theCompany.

The Company and its subsidiaries have reached an agreement withcertain plaintiffs' counsel in an effort to reach resolution ofsubstantially all of the pending MCP cases. The agreement wasentered into solely by way of compromise and settlement and is notin any way an admission of liability or fault by the Company orany of its subsidiaries. An essential element of these settlementswill be participation by the vast majority of plaintiffs involvedin pending litigation. If certain participation thresholds are notmet, the Company will have the right to terminate the agreements.

Distribution of funds to any individual plaintiff will beconditioned upon, among other things a full release and adismissal with prejudice of the entire action or claim as to theCompany and/or each of its subsidiaries. Prior to receiving anaward, an individual claimant shall represent and warrant thatliens, assignment rights, or other claims that are identified inthe claims administration process have been or will be satisfiedby the individual claimant. The amount of settlement awards toparticipating plaintiffs, claimants, the claims evaluation processand procedures used in conjunction with award distributions, andthe negotiations leading to the settlement shall be keptconfidential by all parties and their counsel. The cost of thissettlement has been incorporated into the increase in our productliability reserve.

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 40 Propoxyphene Cases Currently Pending-----------------------------------------------------------Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of November 3,2014, approximately 40 propoxyphene cases, some of which may havebeen filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, are currently pendingagainst Qualitest Pharmaceuticals and/or the Company.

Qualitest Pharmaceuticals and, in certain cases, the Company orcertain of its subsidiaries, along with several otherpharmaceutical manufacturers, have been named as defendants innumerous lawsuits originally filed in various federal and statecourts alleging personal injury resulting from the use ofprescription pain medicines containing propoxyphene. Plaintiffs inthese suits allege various personal injuries including cardiacimpairment, damage and death.

In August 2011, a multidistrict litigation (MDL) was formed, andcertain transferable cases pending in federal court werecoordinated in the Eastern District of Kentucky as part of MDL No.2226. On March 5, 2012 and June 22, 2012, pursuant to a standingshow cause order, the MDL Judge dismissed with prejudice certainclaims against generic manufacturers, including QualitestPharmaceuticals and the Company. Certain plaintiffs appealed thosedecisions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

On June 27, 2014, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of thecases that had been pending as part of a consolidated appeal. InNovember 2012, additional cases were filed in various Californiastate courts, and removed to corresponding federal courts. Many ofthese cases have already been remanded, although appeals are beingpursued. A coordinated proceeding was formed in Los Angeles.

Qualitest Pharmaceuticals and the Company intend to contest all ofthese cases vigorously and to explore other options as appropriatein the best interests of the Company and QualitestPharmaceuticals.

"Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought byother plaintiffs in various jurisdictions. However, we cannotpredict the timing or outcome of any such litigation, or whetherany additional litigation will be brought against the Company orits subsidiaries," the Company said.

As of November 3, 2014, approximately 40 propoxyphene cases, someof which may have been filed on behalf of multiple plaintiffs, arecurrently pending against Qualitest Pharmaceuticals and/or theCompany. The Company and its subsidiaries are unable to predictthe outcome of this matter or the ultimate legal and financialliability, if any, and at this time cannot reasonably estimate thepossible loss or range of loss, if any, for this matter.

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: 14 Testosterone Cases Currently Pending-----------------------------------------------------------Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of November 3,2014, approximately 14 Testosterone cases are currently pendingagainst EPI, including a class action complaint filed in Canada.

EPI, and in certain cases the Company or certain of itssubsidiaries, along with other pharmaceutical manufacturers, hasbeen named as defendants in lawsuits alleging personal injuryresulting from the use of prescription medications containingtestosterone, including Fortesta(R) Gel. Plaintiffs in these suitsallege various personal injuries including pulmonary embolism,stroke, and other vascular and/or cardiac injuries.

In June 2014, an MDL was formed to include claims involving alltestosterone replacement therapies filed against EPI and othermanufacturers of such products, and certain transferable casespending in federal court were coordinated in the Northern Districtof Illinois as part of MDL No.2545. In addition to the federalcases filed against EPI that have been transferred to the NorthernDistrict of Illinois as tag-along actions to MDL No. 2545,litigation has also been filed against EPI in the Court of CommonPleas Philadelphia County.

"Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought byother plaintiffs in various jurisdictions, and cases brought infederal court will be transferred to the Northern District ofIllinois as tag-along actions to MDL 2545. However, we cannotpredict the timing or outcome of any such litigation, or whetherany such additional litigation will be brought against the Companyor EPI, but EPI intends to contest the litigation vigorously andto explore all options as appropriate in the best interests of EPIand the Company," the Company said.

As of November 3, 2014, approximately 14 cases are currentlypending against EPI, including a class action complaint filed inCanada.

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Faces Civil Class Action Complaint in Ill.--------------------------------------------------------------Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that on November 5,2014, a civil class action complaint was filed in the NorthernDistrict of Illinois against EPI and various other manufacturersof testosterone products on behalf of a proposed class of healthinsurance companies and other third party payors that had paid forcertain testosterone products, alleging that the marketing effortsof EPI and other defendant manufacturers with respect to certaintestosterone products constituted racketeering activity inviolation of 18 U.S.C. Sec.1962(c), and other civil RICO claims.Further, the complaint alleges that EPI and other defendantmanufacturers violated various state consumer protection lawsthrough their marketing of certain testosterone products. TheCompany and its subsidiaries are unable to predict the outcome ofthis matter or the ultimate legal and financial liability, if any,and at this time cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss orrange of loss for this matter, if any.

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Bids to Nix Lidoderm Purchasers' Suit Pending-----------------------------------------------------------------Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that multiple directand indirect purchasers of Lidoderm(R) have filed a number ofcases against EPI and co-defendants Teikoku Seiyaku Col, LTD,Teikoku Pharma USA, Inc. (collectively Teikoku) and Actavis plc.,f/k/a as Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and a number of itssubsidiaries (collectively Actavis). The complaints in these casesgenerally allege that Endo, Teikoku and Actavis entered into ananticompetitive conspiracy to restrain trade through thesettlement of patent infringement litigation concerning U.S.Patent No. 5,827,529 (the '529 patent). Some of the complaintsalso allege that Teikoku wrongfully listed the '529 patent in theOrange Book as related to Lidoderm(R), that Endo and Teikokucommenced sham patent litigation against Actavis and that Endoabused the FDA citizen petition process by filing a citizenpetition and amendments solely to interfere with genericcompanies' efforts to obtain FDA approval of their versions ofLidoderm(R). The cases allege violations of Sections 1 and 2 ofthe Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. Sections 1, 2) and various stateantitrust and consumer protection statutes. These cases generallyseek damages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits,restitution, injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1407, issued an order on April 3, 2014,transferring these cases as In Re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation,MDL No. 2521, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern Districtof California for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedingsbefore Judge William H. Orrick.

Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought byother plaintiffs in various jurisdictions, and cases brought infederal court will be transferred to the Northern District ofCalifornia as tag-along actions to In Re Lidoderm AntitrustLitigation.

On June 13, 2014, pursuant to a case management order entered byJudge Orrick, the direct and indirect purchasers each filedconsolidated amended class complaints. In addition, one indirectpurchaser filed a separate complaint. Defendants recently filedmotions to dismiss each of the operative complaints. These motionswere heard on November 5, 2014, but a decision has not yet beenreached.

"However, we cannot predict the timing or outcome of any of thislitigation, or whether any additional litigation will be broughtagainst the Company or EPI," the Company said.

ENDO INTERNATIONAL: Faces Opana Purchasers' Suit------------------------------------------------Endo International Plc said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that multiple directand indirect purchasers of Opana(R) ER have filed cases againstEHSI, EPI, Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co., and Impax LaboratoriesInc. in multiple federal courts. These cases generally allege thatthe agreement reached by EPI and Impax to settle patentinfringement litigation concerning multiple patents pertaining toOpana(R) ER and EPI's introduction of the re-formulation ofOpana(R) ER violated antitrust laws. The complaints allegeviolations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C.Sections 1, 2), various state antitrust and consumer protectionstatutes, as well as state common law. These cases generally seekdamages, treble damages, disgorgement of profits, restitution,injunctive relief and attorneys' fees, and some allege that theywill seek to represent classes of direct and indirect purchasersof Opana(R) ER.

"Litigation similar to that described above may also be brought byother plaintiffs in various jurisdictions. However, we cannotpredict the timing or outcome of any such litigation, or whetherany such litigation will be brought against the Company or EPI,"the Company said.

Appellees filed a 19-count complaint for Appellants failure toprovide all of the amenities that the latter had represented,including various claims of fraud, breach of contract, breach offiduciary duty, and violations of the Ohio Consumer SalesPractices ("CSPA") and the Ohio Retail Installment Sales Acts("RISA"). Appellees sought for class certification underFed.R.Civ.P. 23 and to serve as class representatives.

Appellants filed an opposition to the class certification arguingthat each of the potential class members would need to be examinedto resolve the various fraud claims to determine what wasrepresented to each of them, whether they relied on thoserepresentations, and whether they suffered damages. Also,Appellants contended that Appellees' claims are time-barred.

Appellants filed an appeal contending that the trial court erredin certifying this matter as a class action. Appellants claimthat the trial court erred in granting appellees' motion for classcertification because there exists no identifiable class, theproposed class definition is ambiguous, there are not sufficientquestions of law or fact common to the class, there is nocommonality between appellees and the class, typicality islacking, appellees do not fairly and adequately protect theinterests of the proposed class, and the Rule 23(B) requirementshave not been established.

In his reversal Order, Justice Jensen emphasized that a trialcourt is required to address any argument raised in opposition toclass certification otherwise a decision that ignores such anargument is properly reversed. Hence, the appellate court reversedthe trial court's judgment and remanded the matter to the trialcourt so that it could articulate its reasons for finding thateach of the class certification requirements had been satisfied.

A copy of the Decision and Judgment dated November 7, 2014, isavailable at http://bit.ly/1AMEGhWfrom Leagle.com.

FIREEYE INC: Ryan & Maniskas Files Class Action in California-------------------------------------------------------------Ryan & Maniskas, LLP on Dec. 2 disclosed that it has filed a classaction lawsuit in the United States District Court for theNorthern District of California, on behalf of all persons whopurchased or otherwise acquired common stock of FireEye, Inc.between January 2, 2014 through November 4, 2014, inclusive.

FireEye shareholders may, no later than January 26, 2015, move theCourt for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class. If youpurchased shares of FireEye and would like to learn more aboutthese claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have anyquestions concerning this announcement or your rights, contactRichard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or tosign up online, visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/feye

On May 6, 2014, FireEye announced its first quarter results,surprising investors and analysts. The Company's $24.3 million inproduct revenue fell meaningfully short of analysts' estimates of$31 million and reflected a move away from FireEye's organicsoftware business and towards service-oriented offerings whichlacked the same potential for profitability. In reaction to thesedisclosures, FireEye closed at $28.65, down $8.48 per share. This23% decline represented a market capitalization loss of over $1.25billion.

The Company's stock continued its precipitous decline, plummetingto close at a low of $25.76 on October 10, 2014, down 73.1% fromits Class Period high of $95.63 on March 5, 2014. Notwithstandingthe Company's declining product revenue and the marked turn awayfrom its organic software business, Defendants continuously toutedFireEye's organic and acquired growth as reasons for optimism andpromising future results. Finally, on November 4, 2014, after themarket closed for trading, the Company released disappointingthird quarter results that missed analysts' expectations, andfurther revealed the Company's virtual abandonment of its coresoftware product business model, resulting in a quarterly loss of$0.51 per share.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than January26, 2015, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff ofthe class. A lead plaintiff is a representative party that actson behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. Inorder to be appointed lead plaintiff, the Court must determinethat the class member's claim is typical of the claims of otherclass members, and that the class member will adequately representthe class. Under certain circumstances, one or more class membersmay together serve as "lead plaintiff." Your ability to share inany recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether ornot to serve as a lead plaintiff. You may retain Ryan & Maniskas,LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel inthis action.

If you purchased FireEye common stock during the Class Periodeither in the open market and/or pursuant to the Secondary PublicOffering (SPO) on March 6, 2014, and would like to learn moreabout these claims or if you wish to discuss these matters andhave any questions concerning this announcement or your rights,contact Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free: (877) 316-3218 orvisit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/feyeYou may also email Mr. Maniskas at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com

For more information about class action cases in general, pleasevisit our website: www.rmclasslaw.com

HERBALIFE LTD: Class Action Settlement Gets Initial Court Okay--------------------------------------------------------------Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that Herbalife Ltdwon preliminary court approval of its $15 million settlement ofclass-action litigation accusing the maker of weight loss andnutritional products of being a "pyramid scheme" that misleadsdistributors about how much money they can make.

In a decision dated Dec. 2, U.S. District Judge Beverly ReidO'Connell in Los Angeles called the accord "fair, reasonable, andadequate," a standard often used to assess class-actionsettlements.

The accord also requires Herbalife to provide up to $2.5 millionto distributors who return unused products.

In addition, Herbalife agreed to change some corporate policies,including over how it defines distributors and handles shippingcharges on returned products, for at least three years.

The Los Angeles-based company did not admit wrongdoing.Mr. O'Connell scheduled a May 11, 2015 hearing to consider finalapproval of the accord. About $5.25 million of the settlementfunds could go toward attorney's fees.

Herbalife has long been under attack by short-sellers likebillionaire hedge fund manager William Ackman, who has accused itof inflating results that depend more on its ability to recruitnew distributors than its ability to sell products.

Authorities such as the FBI, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission,and some state attorneys general have also been probingHerbalife's activities.

Herbalife has denied being a pyramid scheme, but the negativepublicity has hurt North American sales.

The case is Bostick et al v. Herbalife International of AmericaInc et al, U.S. District Court, Central District of California,No. 13-02488.

HYUNDAI MOTOR: Faces Class Action Over Repossession Practices-------------------------------------------------------------Aebra Coe and Daniel Siegel, writing for Law360, report that theconsumer finance arm of Hyundai Motor Co. has been hit with aproposed class action in California court for allegedly violatingconsumer protection laws by failing to provide required details onnotifications to customers telling them their recently repossessedvehicles are to be sold.

The suit against Hyundai Capital America and its subsidiary KiaMotors Finance is the latest filed against auto lenders whoallegedly botched the legally required repossession process inCalifornia.

The suit said Kia's notices of intent to sell the repossessedvehicles fails to meet requirements of the Rees-Levering Act byfailing to itemize collection or repossession costs and failing tolist the precise amount for storage fees, preventing the recipientfrom ascertaining how much to pay in order to redeem theirvehicle.

Although Kia's notices included a statement informing therecipient that they could call the lender to confirm the exactamount due, consumers should not be required to make furtherinquiries, according to the complaint filed Nov. 26 in Californiasuperior court.

"These unnecessary hurdles to reinstatement are burdens that arenot permitted by the Rees-Levering Act," the complaint says.

The company sold the repossessed vehicles and then billed thenamed plaintiffs anywhere from $2,600 to $8,200 for the amountstill allegedly owed on their loans after the car was cashed in,the plaintiffs say.

These bills, called deficiency balances, are not permitted underCalifornia law if the lender did not first send a legallysufficient notice of intent, according to the complaint.

"Absent strict compliance with the mandatory requirements for thestatutory notice, a seller or holder may not lawfully collect anydeficiency from any person liable under a form agreement followingdisposition of the repossessed vehicle," the proposed class actionsays.

The company is further accused of violating consumer protectionlaws by requiring those whose cars have been repossessed to showproof of income, insurance, residence and other unspecifieddocuments in order to qualify for reinstatement.

Kemnitzer Barron & Krieg LLP, counsel for the named plaintiffs,Debra Johnson, Alyssa Caras and Christopher Larsen, has filedsimilar litigation against other auto financing companies inCalifornia court and in late October reached a $200 millionsettlement with Santander Consumer USA in a class action over theallegedly faulty notices.

Santander agreed to stop collecting the $199.4 million outstandingdeficiency, or amount remaining on an auto loan, after itrepossessed and sold vehicles, for the roughly 30,000 classmembers whose vehicles were repossessed and who received allegedlyfaulty notices.

The bank also agreed to return 60 percent of the roughly $712,000it collected for deficiency payments from potential class members,according to court documents. The suit said the notices Kia sentto the three named plaintiffs are typical of those sent to all carowners from which the company attempts to collect. It also saidthat the scripts used by employees who spoke with the plaintiffsare used companywide and show a pattern of consumer protection lawabuse by Kia Finance.

The proposed class action was filed on behalf of all similarlysituated car buyers going back four years whose vehicles wererepossessed or voluntarily surrendered and who were assessed adeficiency balance by Kia Finance. It seeks a permanentinjunction ending the allegedly illegal collection practices,restitution, compensatory damages, attorneys' fees and acorrection made to the credit scores of class members.

The case is Debra Johnson et al. v. Hyundai Capital America etal., case number BC565263, in the Superior Court of the State ofCalifornia, County of Los Angeles.

INTEGRITY STAFFING: Gets Favorable Security Screen Suit Ruling--------------------------------------------------------------Tony Mauro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports thatcompanies that require employees to go through security screeningsat the end of their workday are not required to pay overtime, theU.S. Supreme Court ruled on Dec. 9.

The unanimous ruling in Integrity Staffing Solutions v. Busk was abig win for business groups that told the court in amicus briefsthat security checks are used by nearly two-thirds of retailers tocurb employee theft. The National Retail Federation warned thejustices that the outcome of the case was "critically important."

"The court's unanimous decision reinforces the clear dividing linebetween compensable work and noncompensable pre- and post-shiftactivities that had been widely understood by employers for manyyears," said Proskauer Rose partner Edward Brill --ebrill@proskauer.com -- who wrote a brief in the case for theRetail Litigation Center, the Chamber of Commerce and others.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote the terse nine-page decision on thefirst signed opinion day of the court's new term -- the lateststart in at least 10 years. The court also issued anotherunanimous decision Tuesday in Warger v. Shauers, on the use ofjury testimony in seeking a new trial.

Former Solicitor General Paul Clement argued for IntegrityStaffing Solutions Inc., which contracted with Amazon.com Inc. toprovide workers for its warehouses. Two Nevada employees filed aclass action claiming that they should be compensated for theroughly 25 minutes they spent each day waiting in lines to bescreened. A U.S. district court judge dismissed the suit, rulingthat under the Fair Labor Standards Act, the screenings were"postliminary" activities not integral to workers' duties.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, findingthat the screenings were a necessary part of their work performedfor the employer's benefit.

The high court reversed the Ninth Circuit. Judge Thomas assertedthat Congress passed the Portal-to-Portal Act in 1947 specificallyto stop lawsuits that took advantage of ambiguities in the FairLabor Standards Act and in court rulings over what constitutescompensable work time.

Applying the 1947 law, Judge Thomas said it was clear that timespent waiting for security screening did not need to becompensated. Certain activities -- like showering after a day ina chemical plant or sharpening knives after a shift in ameatpacking plant -- were necessary and integral to employees'tasks, Judge Thomas said.

"Integrity Staffing did not employ its workers to undergo securityscreenings, but to retrieve products from warehouse shelves andpackage those products for shipment to Amazon customers," JudgeThomas wrote. "Integrity Staffing could have eliminated thescreenings altogether without impairing the employees' ability tocomplete their work."

The Ninth Circuit was wrong, Judge Thomas added, to focus onwhether the screenings were required by employers. The propertest, he said, was whether an activity is "an intrinsic element"of work duties, and "one with which the employee cannot dispenseif he is to perform his principal activities."

Judge Thomas also responded to an assertion made by the employees:that Integrity Staffing should compensate workers because it couldhave implemented measures -- like staggered shifts -- that wouldhave reduced the waiting time. Judge Thomas said that possibilitydid not change the nature of the activity, and besides, "thesearguments are properly presented to the employer at the bargainingtable."

Catherine Ruckelshaus, general counsel to the National EmploymentLaw Project said Judge Thomas' comment "ignores the fact thatthere is no bargaining table. There is no union representingthese workers." She also said, "If the employer requires it, thework should be paid. That's the common-sense principle thatshould have carried the day but was violated here."

Michael Droke -- droke.michael@dorsey.com -- a partner at Dorsey &Whitney, on Dec. 9 called the high court's ruling "a terrificoutcome for employers. But now, there are some things employersneed to do. . . . Employers should ask themselves: Why theemployee was hired? What task or role the was the employee hiredto perform?"

Thomas Wassel -- twassel@cullenanddykman.com -- of Cullen andDykman said the "case was an attempt to expand employer liabilityinto new areas not recognized before. Businesses faced potentialliabilities of hundreds of millions of dollars if the SupremeCourt had changed the rules. Many employers who have closelyfollowed this case will breathe a sigh of relief."

On August 27, 2014, the Court ordered that all pleading amendmentsin the case be filed no later than February 13, 2015. On October28, 2014, the Plaintiff propounded Special Interrogatories andRequests for Production of Documents on JACO to investigate herclaims regarding Defendant's unlawful practices. JACO's responsesto Plaintiff's discovery were due on or before December 1, 2014.

The parties agreed to a 30-day extension of time for JACO torespond to Plaintiff's discovery, which will now be due on orbefore December 31, 2014.

The parties further agreed to a 60-day extension of time for theparties to file pleading amendments, from February 13, 2015 toApril 13, 2015, in the event Plaintiff uncovers additionalentities that should be named as defendants in this matter.

In his November 26, 2014 order, a copy of which is available athttp://is.gd/XJdrVmfrom Leagle.com, Judge Ishii conditionally certified a class consisting of: "All persons who were or areemployed by Defendant, on or after August 5, 2010 (the 'FLSA ClassPeriod'), in the job position known as drilling fluids specialist('DFS'), 'mud engineer,' 'mud man,' 'mud man trainee,' or'consultant mud man,' or equivalent titles (the 'FLSA CollectivePlaintiffs')."

According to the ruling, by 4:00 p.m., January 8, 2015, Defendantmust have prepared in Microsoft excel, a class list that includes,to the extent known by Defendant, the names, last known mailingaddresses, all prior mailing address, last known email addresses,all prior email addresses, last known telephone number, all priortelephone numbers, and social security numbers of present andformer employees falling within the above class description and tofile a notice certifying that the dataset is ready to be given toa third party administrator. By 4:00 p.m., January 8, 2015,Plaintiffs must file with the court an updated proposed noticethat complies with the rulings of this order and to name a thirdparty administrator that is able and willing to comply with theprocedures specified in this order.

Equitable tolling applies through January 13, 2015, when the courtanticipates issuing a final order approving issuance of thenotices to potential class members.

MAGNUM HUNTER: Court Has No Responsibility to Rewrite Complaint---------------------------------------------------------------Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federalappellate court has ruled that it is not the court'sresponsibility to rewrite a complaint to set forth a claim and,because of that, a class action judgment in favor of Magnum HunterProduction Inc. was affirmed.

Circuit judges Martha Craig Daughtrey, Eric L. Clay and Deborah L.Cook voted in the majority and issued a per curiam decision onNov. 25 for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

Dennis Cornett, Peggy Cornett, Ida L. Osbourne Middleton, Billy F.Middleton, Sonny Begley and Susan Begley filed their class actionlawsuit on June 21, 2013, in Harlan Circuit Court, and it wasremoved to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District ofKentucky on July 24, 2013.

The plaintiffs claimed they had entered into leases with thedefendant's predecessor allowing the defendant to remove naturalgas from their property.

In return, among other things, the plaintiffs were to be paid one-eighth of the price received for the gas, less certain costs.

Although the plaintiffs received royalties under the lease termsfor several years, in 2012 the defendant ceased paying royalties,apparently due to a drop in the market price for natural gas.

The defendant continued to produce natural gas from the propertiesbut after the deduction of costs, it was selling it at a loss.

Since the spring months of 2012, Magnum has allegedly failed totender or pay any royalty whatsoever to the plaintiffs and othermembers of the class.

On March 31, the district court ordered that the class action casebe dismissed. The plaintiffs filed an appeal on April 3.

"Plaintiffs additionally allege that the district courterroneously credited defendant's version of the facts in ruling onthe motion to dismiss, citing Mediacom Southeast L.L.C. v.BellSouth Telecomm Inc. . . ." the opinion states. "But theypoint to no facts set forth in the district court opinion thatcontradict the allegations in the complaint."

The plaintiffs also argued that if the complaint does not state aclaim for waste, it may state a claim for some other cause, andthey invited the Sixth Circuit to discern such a claim or toremand for the district court to do so.

"But the complaint is required to state a plausible claim forrelief on its face in order to survive a motion to dismiss," theopinion states. "It is not the responsibility of the court torewrite the complaint to set forth a claim. Because the complaintfailed to state a claim of waste, we affirm the district court'sjudgment in favor of the defendant."

"Plaintiffs argue that the leases allowed defendant to 'shut in'the wells if the price dropped," the opinion states. "But thatprovision in the lease was permissive, not mandatory, and wasintended to protect defendant from losing its lease."

The plaintiffs also argued that their case is similar to Mullinsv. Dees, which held that a claim of waste was stated.

In Mullins, the defendant coal lessee was not mining coal asprovided in the lease, but was removing the pillars supporting theroof, thus destroying the mine and causing subsidence of thesurface above the mine, according to the opinion.

"Mullins is entirely distinguishable from the case at hand,because defendant continues to produce natural gas as provided inthe lease and is not destroying the mine or the property," theopinion states.

The plaintiffs are represented by John C. Whitfield --john@wbmllp.com -- of Whitfield Bryson & Mason in Madisonville,Ky., and George E. Stigger of the Law Office of George E. Stiggerin St. Marys, Ga.

The defendant is represented by Anne Adams Chesnut of BinghamGreenebaum Doll in Lexington, Ky., and Harry D. Callicotte inLexington.

MERCK & CO: Defendant in 50 Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits------------------------------------------------------------Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that the Company is adefendant in approximately 50 federal and state lawsuits (the"Vioxx Product Liability Lawsuits") alleging personal injury as aresult of the use of Vioxx. Most of these cases are coordinated ina multidistrict litigation in the U.S. District Court for theEastern District of Louisiana (the "Vioxx MDL") before Judge EldonE. Fallon.

Merck is also a defendant in approximately 30 putative classaction lawsuits alleging economic injury as a result of thepurchase of Vioxx. All but two of those cases are in the VioxxMDL. Merck has reached a resolution, approved by Judge Fallon, ofthese class actions in the Vioxx MDL. Under the settlement, Merckwill pay up to $23 million to pay all properly documented claimssubmitted by class members, approved attorneys' fees and expenses,and approved settlement notice costs and certain otheradministrative expenses. The court entered an order approving thesettlement in January 2014. One objector to the settlement hasfiled an appeal from the approval order, which is fully briefedand pending before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the FifthCircuit.

Merck is also a defendant in lawsuits brought by state AttorneysGeneral of three states -- Alaska, Montana and Utah. A fourthaction, brought by the Attorney General of Mississippi, wassettled and dismissed earlier this year. The remaining threeactions were pending in the Vioxx MDL proceeding, although JudgeFallon asked that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation("JPML") remand the cases to their original federal courts. TheJPML issued conditional remand orders in all three cases, andMerck's motions to vacate the conditional remand orders in allthree cases were heard without oral argument at the JPML's October2, 2014 hearing in Louisville, Kentucky.

On October 10, 2014, the JPML issued an order remanding the threeactions back to their original federal courts. These three actionsallege that Merck misrepresented the safety of Vioxx and seekrecovery for expenditures on Vioxx by government-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicaid, and/or penalties for allegedConsumer Fraud Act violations.

MERCK & CO: 4 Securities Suits Filed by Opt-Out Investors---------------------------------------------------------Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that four additionalindividual securities complaints were filed by institutionalinvestors that opted out of the Vioxx Securities class action.

Various putative class actions and individual lawsuits underfederal securities laws and state laws have been filed againstMerck and various current and former officers and directors (the"Vioxx Securities Lawsuits"). The Vioxx Securities Lawsuits arecoordinated in a multidistrict litigation in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of New Jersey before Judge Stanley R.Chesler, and have been consolidated for all purposes.

In August 2011, Judge Chesler granted in part and denied in partMerck's motion to dismiss the Fifth Amended Class Action Complaintin the consolidated securities action. Among other things, theclaims based on statements made on or after the voluntarywithdrawal of Vioxx on September 30, 2004, have been dismissed.

In October 2011, defendants answered the Fifth Amended ClassAction Complaint. In April 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion forclass certification and, in January 2013, Judge Chesler grantedthat motion. In March 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave toamend their complaint to add certain allegations to expand theclass period. In May 2013, the court denied plaintiffs' motion forleave to amend their complaint to expand the class period, butgranted plaintiffs' leave to amend their complaint to add certainallegations within the existing class period.

In June 2013, plaintiffs filed their Sixth Amended Class ActionComplaint. In July 2013, defendants answered the Sixth AmendedClass Action Complaint. Discovery has been completed and is nowclosed. Under the court's scheduling order, dispositive motionshave been fully briefed.

Several individual securities lawsuits filed by foreigninstitutional investors also are consolidated with the VioxxSecurities Lawsuits. In October 2011, plaintiffs filed amendedcomplaints in each of the pending individual securities lawsuits.Also in October 2011, an individual securities lawsuit (the "KBCLawsuit") was filed in the District of New Jersey by severalforeign institutional investors; that case is also consolidatedwith the Vioxx Securities Lawsuits.

In January 2012, defendants filed motions to dismiss in one of theindividual lawsuits (the "ABP Lawsuit"). Briefing on the motionsto dismiss was completed in March 2012. In August 2012, JudgeChesler granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismissthe ABP Lawsuit. Among other things, certain alleged misstatementsand omissions were dismissed as inactionable and all state lawclaims were dismissed in full. In September 2012, defendantsanswered the complaints in all individual actions other than theKBC Lawsuit; on the same day, defendants moved to dismiss thecomplaint in the KBC Lawsuit on statute of limitations grounds.

In December 2012, Judge Chesler denied the motion to dismiss theKBC Lawsuit and, in January 2013, defendants answered thecomplaint in the KBC Lawsuit. Discovery has been completed and isnow closed. Under the court's scheduling order, dispositivemotions have been fully briefed.

In March and April 2014, four additional individual securitiescomplaints were filed by institutional investors that opted out ofthe class action. The new complaints are substantially similar tothe complaints in the other individual securities lawsuits.

MERCK & CO: 5,555 Fosamax Cases Currently Pending-------------------------------------------------Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of September30, 2014, approximately 5,555 cases involving Fosamax, whichinclude approximately 5,760 plaintiff groups, had been filed andwere pending against Merck in either federal or state court,including one case which seeks class action certification, as wellas damages and/or medical monitoring.

Merck is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in the UnitedStates involving Fosamax (the "Fosamax Litigation"). As ofSeptember 30, 2014, approximately 5,555 cases, which includeapproximately 5,760 plaintiff groups, had been filed and werepending against Merck in either federal or state court, includingone case which seeks class action certification, as well asdamages and/or medical monitoring.

In approximately 1,070 of these actions, plaintiffs allege, amongother things, that they have suffered osteonecrosis of the jaw("ONJ"), generally subsequent to invasive dental procedures, suchas tooth extraction or dental implants and/or delayed healing, inassociation with the use of Fosamax. In addition, plaintiffs inapproximately 4,485 of these actions generally allege that theysustained femur fractures and/or other bone injuries ("FemurFractures") in association with the use of Fosamax.

In December 2013, Merck reached an agreement in principle with thePlaintiffs' Steering Committee ("PSC") in the Fosamax ONJ MDL (asdefined below) to resolve pending ONJ cases not on appeal in theFosamax ONJ MDL and in the state courts for an aggregate amount of$27.7 million, which the Company recorded as a liability in thefourth quarter of 2013. Merck and the PSC subsequently formalizedthe terms of this agreement in a Master Settlement Agreement ("ONJMaster Settlement Agreement") that was executed in April 2014. Allof plaintiffs' counsel have advised the Company that they intendto participate in the settlement plan. As a condition to thesettlement, 100% of the state and federal ONJ plaintiffs must alsoagree to participate in the settlement plan or Merck can eitherterminate the ONJ Master Settlement Agreement, or waive the 100%participation requirement and agree to a lesser funding amount forthe settlement fund.

On July 14, 2014, Merck elected to proceed with the ONJ MasterSettlement Agreement at a reduced funding level since the currentparticipation level is approximately 95%. In addition, the judgeoverseeing the Fosamax ONJ MDL granted a motion filed by Merck andhas entered an order that requires approximately 40 non-participants whose cases are filed in the Fosamax ONJ MDL tosubmit expert reports in order for their cases to proceed anyfurther. The ONJ Master Settlement Agreement has no effect on thecases alleging Femur Fractures.

MERCK & CO: 275 ONJ Injury Cases Pending in Atlantic County, NJ---------------------------------------------------------------Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of September30, 2014, approximately 275 cases alleging ONJ and/or Other JawRelated Injuries were pending against Merck in Atlantic County,New Jersey, although these cases are also subject to pendingsettlement.

In August 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation("JPML") ordered that certain Fosamax product liability casespending in federal courts nationwide should be transferred andconsolidated into one multidistrict litigation (the "Fosamax ONJMDL") for coordinated pre-trial proceedings. The Fosamax ONJ MDLhas been transferred to Judge John Keenan in the U.S. DistrictCourt for the Southern District of New York. As a result of theJPML order, approximately 785 of the cases are before JudgeKeenan, although, these cases are subject to the pendingsettlement.

In addition, in July 2008, an application was made by the AtlanticCounty Superior Court of New Jersey requesting that all of theFosamax cases pending in New Jersey be considered for mass tortdesignation and centralized management before one judge in NewJersey. In October 2008, the New Jersey Supreme Court ordered thatall pending and future actions filed in New Jersey arising out ofthe use of Fosamax and seeking damages for existing dental andjaw-related injuries, including ONJ, but not solely seekingmedical monitoring, be designated as a mass tort for centralizedmanagement purposes.

MERCK & CO: 2,920 Femur Fracture Cases Pending in NJ State Court----------------------------------------------------------------Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of September30, 2014, approximately 2,920 cases alleging Femur Fractures havebeen filed in New Jersey state court.

In March 2011, Merck submitted a Motion to Transfer to theJudicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") seeking tohave all federal cases alleging Femur Fractures consolidated intoone multidistrict litigation for coordinated pre-trialproceedings. The Motion to Transfer was granted in May 2011, andall federal cases involving allegations of Femur Fracture havebeen or will be transferred to a multidistrict litigation in theDistrict of New Jersey (the "Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL"). As aresult of the JPML order, approximately 1,035 cases were pendingin the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL as of September 30, 2014.

A Case Management Order was entered requiring the parties toreview 33 cases. Judge Joel Pisano selected four cases from thatgroup to be tried as the initial bellwether cases in the FosamaxFemur Fracture MDL. The first bellwether case, Glynn v. Merck,began on April 8, 2013, and the jury returned a verdict in Merck'sfavor on April 29, 2013; in addition, on June 27, 2013, JudgePisano granted Merck's motion for judgment as a matter of law inthe Glynn case and held that the plaintiff's failure to warn claimwas preempted by federal law. Judge Pisano set a May 5, 2014,trial date for the bellwether trial of a case in which the allegedinjury took place after January 31, 2011.

Following the completion of fact discovery, the court selectedSweet v. Merck as the next Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL case to betried on May 5, 2014, but plaintiffs subsequently dismissed thatcase. As a result, the May 2014 trial date was withdrawn.In addition, Judge Pisano entered an order in August 2013requiring plaintiffs in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL to showcause why those cases asserting claims for a femur fracture injurythat took place prior to September 14, 2010, should not bedismissed based on the court's preemption decision in the Glynncase. Plaintiffs filed their responses to the show cause order atthe end of September 2013 and Merck filed its reply to thoseresponses at the end of October 2013. A hearing on the show causeorder was held in January 2014 and, on March 26, 2014, JudgePisano issued an opinion finding that all claims of theapproximately 650 plaintiffs who allegedly suffered injuries priorto September 14, 2010 were preempted and ordered that those casesbe dismissed.

The majority of those plaintiffs are appealing that ruling to theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Furthermore, on June17, 2014, Judge Pisano granted Merck summary judgment in theGaynor v. Merck case and found that Merck's updates in January2011 to the Fosamax label regarding atypical femur fractures wereadequate as a matter of law and that Merck adequately communicatedthose changes. The plaintiffs in Gaynor have appealed JudgePisano's decision to the Third Circuit.

In August 2014, Merck filed a motion requesting that Judge Pisanoenter a further order requiring all remaining plaintiffs in theFosamax Femur Fracture MDL to show cause why their cases shouldnot be dismissed based on the court's preemption decision and itsruling in the Gaynor case that the 2011 Merck label is adequate asa matter of law. Plaintiffs have opposed that motion and asked thecourt to stay the remaining cases in the Fosamax Femur FractureMDL until the Third Circuit rules on their appeal of JudgePisano's preemption decision.

In September 2014, Judge Pisano also ordered the parties toparticipate in a mediation process.

As of September 30, 2014, approximately 2,920 cases alleging FemurFractures have been filed in New Jersey state court and werepending before Judge Carol E. Higbee in Atlantic County SuperiorCourt until she was reassigned to the New Jersey AppellateDivision in August 2014. The parties selected an initial group of30 cases to be reviewed through fact discovery. Two additionalgroups of 50 cases each to be reviewed through fact discovery wereselected in November 2013 and March 2014, respectively. InSeptember 2014, Judge Julio Mendez, the Assignment Judge forAtlantic County, advised that the Fosamax Femur Fracture caseswill be transferred to the Multi-County Litigation Vicinage inMiddlesex County.

MERCK & CO: 520 Femur Fracture Cases Filed in Calif. State Court----------------------------------------------------------------Merck & Co., Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of September30, 2014, approximately 520 cases alleging Femur Fractures havebeen filed in California state court. A petition was filed seekingto coordinate all Femur Fracture cases filed in California statecourt before a single judge in Orange County, California. Thepetition was granted and Judge Thierry Colaw is currentlypresiding over the coordinated proceedings.

In March 2014, the court directed that a group of 10 discoverypool cases be reviewed through fact discovery and subsequentlyscheduled the Galper v. Merck case as the first trial for February2015. Two additional trials are scheduled for May and July 2015.Additionally, there are five Femur Fracture cases pending in otherstate courts.

Discovery is ongoing in the Fosamax Femur Fracture MDL and instate courts where Femur Fracture cases are pending and theCompany intends to defend against these lawsuits.

MERCK & CO: 700 Januvia/Janumet Product User Claims Pending-----------------------------------------------------------Merck & Co., Inc. is a defendant in product liability lawsuits inthe United States involving Januvia and/or Janumet. Merck said inits Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2014, that as of September 30, 2014, approximately700 product user claims were served on, and are pending against,Merck alleging generally that use of Januvia and/or Janumet causedthe development of pancreatic cancer. These complaints were filedin several different state and federal courts. Most of the claimsare pending in a consolidated multidistrict litigation proceedingin the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Californiacalled "In re Incretin-Based Therapies Products LiabilityLitigation." That proceeding includes federal lawsuits allegingpancreatic cancer due to use of the following medicines: Januvia,Janumet, Byetta and Victoza, the latter two of which are productsmanufactured by other pharmaceutical companies. In addition to thecases noted above, the Company has agreed, as of September 30,2014, to toll the statute of limitations for 19 additional claims.The Company intends to defend against these lawsuits.

MERCK & CO: 1,945 NuvaRing Cases Currently Pending--------------------------------------------------Merck & Co., said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on November 10, 2014, for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2014, that as of September30, 2014, there were approximately 1,945 NuvaRing cases, the vastmajority of which are subject to settlement agreement.

Beginning in May 2007, a number of complaints were filed invarious jurisdictions asserting claims against the Company'ssubsidiaries Organon USA, Inc., Organon Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.,Organon International (collectively, "Organon"), and the Companyarising from Organon's marketing and sale of NuvaRing (the"NuvaRing Litigation"), a combined hormonal contraceptive vaginalring. The plaintiffs contend that Organon and Schering-Plough,among other things, failed to adequately design and manufactureNuvaRing and failed to adequately warn of the alleged increasedrisk of venous thromboembolism ("VTE") posed by NuvaRing, and/ordownplayed the risk of VTE. The plaintiffs seek damages forinjuries allegedly sustained from their product use, includingsome alleged deaths, heart attacks and strokes. The majority ofthe cases are currently pending in a federal multidistrictlitigation (the "NuvaRing MDL") venued in Missouri and in acoordinated proceeding in New Jersey state court.

As of September 30, 2014, there were approximately 1,945 NuvaRingcases, the vast majority of which are subject to settlementagreement. Of these cases, approximately 1,720 are or will bepending in the NuvaRing MDL in the U.S. District Court for theEastern District of Missouri before Judge Rodney Sippel, andapproximately 215 are pending in coordinated proceedings in theBergen County Superior Court of New Jersey before Judge Brian R.Martinotti. Seven additional cases are pending in various otherstate courts, including cases in a coordinated state proceeding inthe San Francisco Superior Court in California before Judge JohnE. Munter.

Merck and negotiating plaintiffs' counsel agreed to a settlementof the NuvaRing Litigation to resolve all filed cases as ofFebruary 7, 2014, and all unfiled claims under retainer by counselprior to that date. Pursuant to this settlement agreement, whichbecame effective as of June 4, 2014, Merck paid a lump totalsettlement of $100 million to resolve more than 95% of the casesfiled and under retainer by counsel as of February 7, 2014. Thevast majority of the plaintiffs with pending lawsuits have optedinto the settlement and all participants in the settlement havetendered dismissals of their cases to the settlementadministrator. The dismissals will be filed with the courts uponcompletion of the settlement administration process. The Companyhas certain insurance coverage available to it, which is currentlybeing used to partially fund the Company's legal fees. Thisinsurance coverage has also been used to fund the settlement. Anyplaintiff not participating in the settlement who chooses toproceed with their case, as well as any future plaintiffs, in theNuvaRing MDL or New Jersey state court are and will be obligatedto meet various discovery and evidentiary requirements under thecase management orders of the NuvaRing MDL and New Jersey statecourt. Plaintiffs who fail to fully and timely satisfy theserequirements under set deadlines will be subject to an Order toShow Cause why their case should not be dismissed with prejudice.

MERCK & CO: 1,245 Propecia/Proscar Lawsuits Filed-------------------------------------------------Merck & Co., is a defendant in product liability lawsuits in theUnited States involving Propecia and/or Proscar. Merck said inits Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on November 10, 2014, for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2014, that as of September 30, 2014, approximately1,245 lawsuits involving a total of approximately 1,515 plaintiffs(in a few instances spouses are joined as plaintiffs in the suits)who allege that they have experienced persistent sexual sideeffects following cessation of treatment with Propecia and/orProscar have been filed against Merck. Approximately 45 of theplaintiffs also allege that Propecia or Proscar has caused or cancause prostate cancer or male breast cancer. The lawsuits havebeen filed in various federal courts and in state court in NewJersey. The federal lawsuits have been consolidated for pretrialpurposes in a federal multidistrict litigation before Judge JohnGleeson of the Eastern District of New York. The matters pendingin state court in New Jersey have been consolidated before JudgeJessica Mayer in Middlesex County. In addition, there is onematter pending in federal court in Kansas and one matter pendingin federal court in California. The Company intends to defendagainst these lawsuits.

MOL GLOBAL: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New York---------------------------------------------------------Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on Dec. 2 disclosed that a classaction has been commenced in the United States District Court forthe Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of MOLGlobal, Inc. American Depositary Shares ("ADSs") between October14, 2014, the date of MOL Global's initial public offering("IPO"), and December 1, 2014.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court nolater than 60 days from November 24, 2014. If you wish to discussthis action or have any questions concerning this notice or yourrights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve aslead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose todo nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges MOL Global, certain of its officers anddirectors and the underwriters of its IPO with violations of theSecurities Act of 1933. MOL Global provides e-payment solutionsfor online goods and services in Southeast Asia.

On October 8, 2014, the SEC declared the Registration Statementfor the IPO effective and on or about October 14, 2014, MOL Globaland the underwriters priced the IPO. The IPO was a success, withMOL Global issuing and selling more than 7.485 million ADSs of MOLGlobal to the public at $12.50 each, raising $93.6 million ingross proceeds, and certain selling stockholders selling anothermore than 6 million ADSs, raising $75.2 million in gross proceeds.

The complaint alleges that under the rules and regulationsgoverning the preparation of the Registration Statement, MOLGlobal was required to disclose at the time of the IPO that theCompany lacked adequate financial reporting capabilities to timelyand accurately report its financial results and forecasts, that ithad misstated Revenue and Direct Cost and Other Ancillary Expensesin its Vietnam subsidiary, and that the shift from online tomobile gaming had decreased volumes in the Company's online gamesportal, MMOG.asia, which decrease was being further compounded bytechnical delays in introducing and monetizing new mobile games onthe Company's platform. The Registration Statement, however,contained no such disclosures.

When the market learned the truth, the price of MOL Global ADSsfell. At the time of the filing of this action, MOL Global ADSswere trading below $2 each, a more than 85% decline from the IPOprice.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers ofMOL Global ADSs pursuant and/or traceable to the RegistrationStatement issued in connection with MOL Global's October 14, 2014IPO (the "Class"), including purchasers of its ADSs through andincluding December 1, 2014. The plaintiff is represented byRobbins Geller, which has expertise in prosecuting investor classactions and extensive experience in actions involving financialfraud.

With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international institutional investors in contingency-based securities andcorporate litigation. The firm has obtained many of the largestsecurities class action recoveries in history, including thelargest securities class action judgment.

Plaintiff alleged that in their labeling and marketing campaigns,Defendants have made the following marketing representations: (1)that Growth Factor-9 provides a 682% mean increase in HGH levels;(2) that Growth Factor-9 is clinically tested; and (3) that "arecent, randomized, cross-over, double-blind clinical trial"supports the growth hormone representations.

Defendants moved for the dismissal of the Complaint, arguing that:(1) Plaintiff brings only substantiation claims, for which thereexists no available private right of action; (2) even ifPlaintiff's claims are construed to be something other thansubstantiation claims, the Complaint fails to demonstrate thatDefendants' claims regarding Growth Factor-9 are false; and (3)Plaintiff's Complaint fails to allege that Defendants did not relyon competent scientific evidence.

In her order granting Defendant's motion to dismiss, MagistrateJudge James ruled that the Complaint, as drafted, is insufficientand does not demonstrate that Defendants' advertising claims arefalse or misleading. Besides, no private right of action existsfor a substantiation claim to arise. Thus, private litigants mayonly bring claims under these sections for false or misleadingadvertising, and must provide adequate factual bases for suchallegations. In the bare-bones allegations, there is no citedauthorities that actually refers to Growth Factor-9 falseadvertising.

OAKLAND, CA: Mass Arrest Class Action Settlement Awaits Approval----------------------------------------------------------------Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that asecond million-dollar class action settlement stemming from massarrests during Occupy Oakland demonstrations will head to federalcourt on Dec. 17, when a magistrate will assess the deal thatcould provide close to $3,000 for each of 360 protesters roundedup by police.

The proposed $1.36 million settlement in Angell v. Oakland wasinitially rejected on Nov. 21 by U.S. Magistrate Judge NathanaelCousins of the Northern District of California, who requestedclarification and revisions to several components of the dealbetween the protesters and the city of Oakland and Alameda Countyregarding a roundup of hundreds during a downtown Oaklanddemonstration on Jan. 28, 2012.

If approved, it would bring to nearly $3 million the total awardedto Occupy arrestees and their attorneys by the city and county.The earlier settlement in Spalding v. City of Oakland, for $1.17million stemming from arrests during a Nov. 3, 2011,demonstration, was approved in 2013, in a deal that also led tochanges in police and city crowd-control practices.

Elsewhere, a putative class action in New York by hundreds ofOccupy Wall Street protesters was kept alive on Aug. 21 when theU.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit refused to dismissthe suit, Garcia v. Doe, in which the demonstrators alleged theywere goaded by police into violating the law on Oct. 1, 2011. Ina 2-1 ruling, the appeals panel affirmed a lower court's decisionagainst dismissal, giving little merit to New York City's argumentof qualified immunity.

In the pending Oakland case, the plaintiffs allege violations oftheir rights under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth amendments, aswell as violations of California law requiring the citation andrelease of those arrested for misdemeanors; instead, theprotesters allege, they were held in cells for as long as 24hours.

Under the terms of current proposed settlement, the jurisdictionsagree to pay $1.36 million, including the estimated $2,664 perclass member, $9,000 each for lead plaintiff Steven Angell andseven other class representatives, and $350,000 for plaintiffs'attorneys' fees and costs.

The parties also have agreed to seal and destroy arrests recordsof those taken into custody, according to the proposed settlement.Plaintiffs' counsel are Yolanda Huang and attorneys with the firmSiegel & Yee. Representing Oakland is City Attorney BarbaraParker, and representing Alameda County are attorneys with thefirm Boornazian, Jensen & Garthe.

REMINGTON ARMS: Settles Class Action Over Defective Rifle Trigger-----------------------------------------------------------------Lisa Hoffman, writing for The National Law Journal, reports thatRemington Arms Co. has agreed to replace the trigger mechanism inas many as 8 million of its iconic Model 700 bolt-action rifles,according to the terms of a settlement in a putative class actionthat alleged a defect allowed the rifle to fire even when thetrigger is not pulled.

The proposed agreement to settle Pollard v. Remington, filed onDec. 5 in U.S. District Court for the Western District ofMissouri, followed years of legal combat, thousands of consumercomplaints, reports of more than 100 serious injuries and deathsand an earlier recall of thousands of what is called the world'smost popular hunting rifle, one favored by elements of the U.S.military and law enforcement.

The deal covers more than a dozen rifle models, including theModel 7 variation. The company -- which continues to maintain thefirearms are safe and has blamed user error for most reportedmalfunctions -- agreed to retrofit the rifles equipped with WalkerFire Control System at no cost to the owners. The deal, whichdoes not include a recall, also includes up to $12.5 million forplaintiffs' counsel's fees and costs.

Remington said it would replace those with improved X-Mark Protrigger mechanisms, which were upgraded to remedy a defect oftheir own. Earlier this year, the company recalled thousands ofrifles with X-Mark Pro triggers after finding that an excess ofbonding agent used in the manufacturing process could cause themto unintentionally fire. Remington said it corrected the problem,and the mechanisms to be installed in the rifles covered by thesettlement are free of the bonding defect.

The proposed settlement was triggered by a putative class actionbrought in 2013 by Ian Pollard of Concordia, Mo., and a similarsuit in Washington state. Mr. Pollard alleged his Model 700 rifledischarged multiple times without a trigger pull. He allegedRemington engaged in negligence, breach of warranty, unfair anddeceptive trade practices and fraudulent concealment.

"The conspiracy deprived Plaintiffs and other class members ofmillions of dollars in compensation while the films they producedgenerated billions of dollars in revenues for Defendants," saysthe trio's filing, which seeks a jury trial. Like the previoussuits, this one seeks reclassification to a class action thatcould grow to thousands of members who worked at the companiesfrom 2004 onward.

While now adding Fox subsidiary Blue Sky Studios, this filing issimilar in many respects to the original complaint by Mr. Nitschback in early September. However, unlike past paperwork on thisissue, this new consolidated and amended complaint not only namesDWA CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg and Disney-Pixar's Ed Catmull, amongothers, but points some very specific new fingers to make itspoints about the illegal agreement among the animation studios.

"Despite his concern that it was 'taboo' to do so, DreamWorks'Head of Production Technology emailed the heads of human resourcesat Pixar, ILM, Sony Pictures Animation, and Disney in January 2009to learn how they handled overtime -- an issue that wascompetitively sensitive in an industry where workers are regularlyasked to work dozens of hours of overtime a week," claims the new34-page filing. "He sought to see if the other companies were 'asgenerous' -- an answer that could allow him to reduce compensationwithout fear of losing a competitive advantage. A Sony executivecalled him after emailing him the subject was not 'taboo' forher."

Adds the new complaint: "No studio acting in its own independentself-interest in the absence of a conspiracy to suppresscompensation would share this kind of compensation information,let alone with such a large group of competitors. Such behavioronly makes sense in the context of a conspiracy to suppresscompensation."

Add that to the animation studios' concerns that the case is underthe watch of Judge Lucy Koh. Back in late September, Judge Kohagreed to the request from former DWA effects artist Mr. Nitschthat the Northern District of California federal judge bereassigned his class action. Mr. Nitsch's gist was that hisSeptember 8-filed antitrust class-action complaint was "related"to the High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation case that Judge Kohhad been presiding over for the past several years. Coming out ofa DOJ investigation, that case was where details of the toonstudios' anti-poaching deal came to light.

While Lucasfilm and a few others settled with a $9 million paymentin the High-Tech case, Judge Koh rejected Apple and other techcompanies' $325 million settlement attempt to end the case --something the tech giants now are fighting in the courts. InOctober, Judge Koh assigned herself the Cano case, which was filedon September 17, and the Wentworth case, filed on October 2.

Interestingly late last month, the plaintiffs sought to file theiramended complaint under seal because it had "documents defendantshave designated as 'Confidential' or 'Confidential - Attorneys'Eyes Only.'" However, with the toon studios saying that theywould not "maintain the CAC under seal," Judge Koh on Dec. 2ordered Nitsch, Cano and Wentworth to have their attorneys in thepublic record.

All of which makes this case even more of one to watch, wild cardsand all.

The consolidated amended class-action complaint was submitted byDaniel A. Small -- dsmall@cohenmilstein.com -- of Washington DC'sCohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC. Mr. Small was on Mr. Nitsch'slegal team in the first 'toon class action complaint filing.Other lawyers from the firm and over 10 others representing thetrio join him now in this one.

SUNRISE CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Miller" Suit Claims-------------------------------------------------------------Glenn Miller, on behalf of himself and all others similarlysituated v. Sunrise Credit Services, Inc. and John Does 1-25, CaseNo. 1:14-cv-09818 (S.D.N.Y., December 12, 2014), arises out of theDefendants abusive, deceptive and unfair practices of collectingdebt.

TAMPA BAY BUCCANEERS: Class Suit Claims Not Moot, 11th Cir. Rules-----------------------------------------------------------------Kyla Asbury, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a federalappeals court has ruled that a plaintiff's individual claim is notmooted by an unaccepted offer of judgment in a class actionlawsuit against the Tampa Bay Buccaneers for allegedly sendingunsolicited faxes to businesses.

"This case presents the question whether a defendant may moot aclass action through an unaccepted Federal Rule of Civil Procedure68 offer of complete relief to the named plaintiffs -- but not toclass members -- before the named plaintiffs move to certify theclass," the Dec. 1 opinion in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the11th Circuit states. "In the circumstances of this case, theanswer is no. We join the majority of circuits that haveaddressed the issue."

Circuit judges Beverly B. Martin, Richard K. Eaton and Robert L.Hinkle voted in the majority, with Hinkle authoring the opinion.

"On the issue of the mootness of the class claims, Zeidman [v. J.Ray McDermott & Co.] is different from our case in only onesignificant respect: in Zeidman, the plaintiffs moved to certify aclass before the individual claims became moot, while here, theplaintiffs moved to certify the class only after [BuccaneersLimited Partnership] served its Rule 68 offers," the opinionstates. "BLP says this changes the result. We disagree."

The class action lawsuit was initially filed in the Circuit Courtof the Sixth Judicial Circuit for Pinellas County, Fla. on Aug. 1,2013. It was removed to the U.S. District Court for the MiddleDistrict of Florida on Aug. 16, 2013.

On Oct. 24, 2013, the district court ordered the class actionlawsuit dismissed for lack of jurisdictionally necessary "case orcontroversy."

In Sosna v. Iowa, the named plaintiff challenged Iowa's durationalresidence requirement for divorces, according to the opinion.

"After a three-judge district court upheld the Iowa provision onthe merits, and while the case was pending on appeal to theSupreme Court, the named plaintiff's individual claim became mooton two grounds: she got a divorce in another state, and she hadlived in Iowa long enough to satisfy the durational residencerequirement."

The Supreme Court said the case could nonetheless go forward andthe court said that upon certification, class members "acquired alegal status separate from the interest of [the named plaintiff]."

"And the Court cited its prior decisions holding that disputeswere not moot when they were 'capable of repetition, yet evadingreview,'" the opinion states. "Sosna squarely refutes anyassertion that a class action is always moot just because thenamed plaintiff's claim is moot.

"First, a plaintiff's individual claim is not mooted by anunaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment. Second, a proffer thatmoots a named plaintiff's individual claim does not moot a classaction in circumstances like those presented here, even if theproffer comes before the plaintiff has moved to certify a class.The district court's order dismissing the action is reversed."

The panel stated it is plain that this case still presents a livecontroversy.

"The plaintiffs say BLP violated the Telephone Consumer ProtectionAct and that all class members are entitled to money damages; BLPdenies it," the opinion states. "In indistinguishablecircumstances, Zeidman held the dispute was still live and said:'The case before us, therefore, rests not on whether there existsa live controversy, but on whether the district court has beforeit some plaintiff with a personal stake in that controversy.'. . . The same is true here."

The panel stated the Supreme Court has made clear, more than once,that the necessary personal stake in a live class actioncontroversy sometimes is present even when the named plaintiff'sown individual claim has become moot.

The plaintiffs are represented by Joseph J. Siprut and Gregg M.Barbakoff of Siprut PC in Chicago; James M. Thomas of the LawOffice of James M. Thomas in Dunedin, Fla.

Judge Corley approved the appointment of Shaun Setareh as ClassCounsel and Plaintiff Patrick Bellinghausen as classrepresentatives for settlement purposes, and the form and contentof the revised proposed notice in the case.

In their joint motion for approval of the settlement, the partiesstated that "Plaintiff seeks to represent a putative class of allnon-exempt employees employed by Tractor Supply in Californiabetween April 25, 2009 until the date this Court grantspreliminary approval, except any employee who has individuallyadjudicated his or her claims during that same time period."

The parties' agreement provides a settlement fund of $1,000,000.Reduced from that fund are 1) attorney's fees up to 30 percent ofthe fund ($300,000); 2) actual litigation costs up to $30,000; 3)enhancement awards to Plaintiff up to $20,000; 4) payment of$35,000 in civil penalties to the Labor Workforce and DevelopmentAgency ("LWDA"); and 5) claims administration expenses up to$16,000. The remaining funds are then distributed to the classmembers who do not opt out of the class. Class members willreceive a pro rata share of the fund based on his or her"compensable hours"1 worked during the class period, lessstatutorily required tax withholdings.

The Court observed two minor deficiencies in the class noticeregarding the terms of the settlement. First, Paragraph 20 of thenotice, which describes the settlement fund and the amountsproposed for deduction, omits the $35,000 set aside as LWDApenalties; the notice shall include this deduction, ruled JudgeCorley. Second, Paragraph 21 provides a hypothetical regarding apotential payment to a class member. The hypothetical suggeststhat the fund may be reduced to as low as $550,000, afteraccounting for attorneys' fees, costs, etc.; however, the lowestpossible balance for the fund is $600,000. "The parties shallalter this hypothetical as to not confuse class members. Otherthan the above two points, the Court finds the informationprovided in the notice meets the requirements of Rule23(c)(2)(B)," Judge Corley added.

Within 15 business days of the preliminary class approval,Defendant must provide the Settlement Administrator with the ClassList.

The Class Notice Packet will be mailed around the week of December24, 2014. Class counsel will then have until approximatelysometime until the second week in January to file and post theirmotion for attorneys' fees and costs (31 days after the ClassNotice Packet mailing). Any objections to the settlement and/orfees and costs must be submitted within 45 days of the mailing ofthe Class Notice Packet.

No later than January 7, 2015, Class Counsel must file and post onthe website for class review their motion for attorneys' fees andcosts.

This matter will be heard for a final fairness hearing on March19, 2015 at 9 a.m. Plaintiff's application for attorneys' fees,costs, and incentive awards will be reviewed at that time.

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Illegal Background Check Class Action--------------------------------------------------------------Courtney Coren, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that UberTechnologies was hit with a class action lawsuit alleging itperforms illegal background checks and violated federal law whenit checks on drivers for its mobile-app that helps users findtransportation, according to a Boston cabdriver.

Uber along with its subsidiary Rasier, LLC and Hirease, LLC, acompany that performs background checks, was hit with the illegalbackground check class action lawsuit on Nov. 24 in Californiafederal court by plaintiff Abdul Kadir Mohamed, who alleges thatthey violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act as well as creditreporting laws in both California and Massachusetts.

Mr. Mohamed claims that he had been employed by Uber as an "UberBlack" driver and wanted to become and "Uber X" driver. However,Uber said that he would have to get a new car.

In the Uber class action lawsuit, Mr. Mohamed says that inSeptember he bought a new car for about $25,000 to comply with theUber X requirements.

However, on Oct. 28, Mr. Mohamed says he received an email from"uberreports@hireease.com" saying that because of information froma consumer report from Hireease, Rasier was "unable to furtherconsider" his proposal to become an Uber X driver.

In addition, around the same time that he received the email,"access to the Uber app on his phone, which previously enabled himto work as an Uber driver, was turned off."

The email said that Mohamed had received a copy of the report "'inaccordance with the Fair Credit Reporting Act,'" but the Bostoncabdriver says that this was not the case.

In addition to not receiving a copy of the consumer report, healso did not receive a "pre-adverse action notice," giving him achance to explain the contents of the consumer report inaccordance with the FCRA, the Uber class action lawsuit states.

And now, because he was fired by Uber, he is left "without analternative means of providing for his family, including his sevenchildren."

According to the Uber class action lawsuit, the credit reportinglaws give businesses guidelines for how consumer background checksmay be used for hiring or firing employees.

"Specifically, the statutes require that an employer firstdisclose its intent to use a background report in its hiringdecision and must obtain the prospective employee's writtenauthorization to do so, and the employer's disclosure must be 'ina document that consists solely of the disclosure,'" Mohamedexplains in the FCRA lawsuit.

In addition, because "misreported information can and does oftenlead to grave consequences for the job seeker," businesses aresupposed to provide a copy of the report to the subject, as wellas a copy of the person's rights under the federal law, and giveeach person "a reasonable opportunity to dispute the information"before there are "any adverse" decisions about the person'semployment.

The same rights are granted under the California law, where Uberis headquartered, and Massachusetts credit reporting laws, whereMohamed lives and works.

Also, under California law, employers are supposed to notify theperson in writing that a consumer credit report is going to beperformed. That notice is also supposed to include "the source ofthe report, and shall contain a box that the person may check offto receive a copy of the credit report."

Mr. Mohamed claims that Uber and Rasier uses consumer reports forthe purpose of employment and that the FCRA applies to them.

He "alleges that Uber and Rasier knowingly, voluntarily, and withthe assistance of its counsel, executed a certification providingthat it would comply with various provisions of the FCRA," butthat the companies "knowingly violated" the federal and statelaws.

Mr. Mohamed is represented by Tina Wolfson, Robert Ahdoot,Theodore W. Maya and Bradley K. King of Ahdoot & Wolfson PC.

Defendants filed a motion to transfer venue to the CentralDistrict of California arguing that the action could have beenbrought there in the first instance and that the relevant factorsrelating to convenience and the interests of justice favortransfer.

Defendants stated further that majority of their witnesses areemployees with knowledge of their practices and decisionsconcerning the Biohazardous Waste Management Fee. Also, they arepresently assigned at their headquarters in Southern California.

In granting the Defendant's motion to transfer venue, MagistrateJudge James ruled that Plaintiffs' complaint originated atDefendants' headquarters in the Central District. Judge James alsopointed out that Plaintiffs' choice of the Northern District ofCalifornia is entitled to less deference because in a class actioncase, Plaintiff's choice of forum is given less weight.Plaintiff's argument that Central District is more congested thanthe Northern District Case is not likely to raise litigation costsdue to its comparatively quick resolution time.

A copy of the Order dated November 6, 2014, is available atbit.ly/1GOLTD3 from Leagle.com.

Ms. King was hired by WV Choice as an in-home direct care workerto provide companionship services to the elderly or infirm. Theseservices include meal preparation, bed-making, prompting clientsto take medications, washing clothing, and assisting clients withpersonal care, such as dressing and personal grooming.

WV Choice states that these services are typical of the in-homecompanionship care services provided by Ms. King and its otherdirect care worker employees.

Ms. King filed a class action complaint against WV Choice forunpaid overtime compensation for herself and all other similarlysituated employees by alleging that WV Choice violated the MinimumWage and Maximum Hours Standards (MWMHS) by failing to pay her forhours worked in excess of forty hours per week at a rate of oneand one-half times her regular rate.

In its order, the circuit court found that the undisputed evidenceestablished that more than 80% of WV Choice's employees, includingMs. King, were subject to the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), afederal act which relates to minimum wage, maximum hours, andovertime compensation. Hence, the circuit court dismissed, withprejudice, Ms. King's overtime compensation claim filed under theMWMHS.

Ms. King appealed.

Justice Loughry issued an Opinion that the circuit court actedproperly in granting summary judgment to WV Choice and concludedthat WV Choice is a FLSA-regulated employer. Further, JusticeLoughry stated that because more than 80% of its employees aresubject to a federal act relating to minimum wage, maximum hoursand overtime compensation, WV Choice does not meet the definitionof an employer under the state's MWMHS for purposes of Ms. King'sovertime compensation claim.

A copy of the Opinion dated November 7, 2014, is available atbit.ly/1qDO16k from Leagle.com.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co. Paid $900,000 to PI Claimant-------------------------------------------------------Crane Co. paid $900,000 to William Paulus, who filed an asbestos-related personal injury claim, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

On August 29, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict in theWilliam Paulus claim in Los Angeles, California. The jury foundthat the Company was responsible for ten percent (10%) ofplaintiffs' non-economic damages of $6.5 million, plus a portionof plaintiffs' economic damages of $0.4 million. Based onCalifornia court rules regarding allocation of damages, judgmentwas entered in the amount of $0.8 million against the Company. TheCompany filed post-trial motions requesting judgment in theCompany's favor notwithstanding the jury's verdict, which weredenied. The Company appealed, and the judgment was affirmed byorder dated February 21, 2014. The Company sought review ofcertain aspects of the ruling before the California Supreme Court,and review was denied. Having exhausted all post-trial andappellate remedies, the Company in June 2014 paid to plaintiffsthe amount of $0.9 million, the judgment including interest, andthis amount is included in second quarter indemnity totals.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a diversified manufacturer of engineeredindustrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace &Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, FluidHandling and Controls. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has twogroups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. TheEngineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforcedplastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised oftwo businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The FluidHandling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handlingequipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions forsensing and control applications. In December 2013, the Companyannounced that it has completed the acquisition of MEI ConluxHoldings.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Ct. to Review Ruling in PI Suit v. Crane Co.----------------------------------------------------------------The New York Court of Appeals has accepted Crane Co.'s request fora review of a ruling entered in the asbestos-related personalinjury lawsuit filed by Gerald Suttner, according to the Company'sForm 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commissionfor the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

On October 23, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict inthe Gerald Suttner claim in Buffalo, New York. The jury found thatthe Company was responsible for four percent (4%) of plaintiffs'damages of $3 million. The Company filed post-trial motionsrequesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding thejury's verdict, which were denied. The court entered a judgment of$0.1 million against the Company. The Company appealed, and thejudgment was affirmed by order dated March 21, 2014. The Companysought reargument of this decision, which was denied. The Companysought review before the New York Court of Appeals, which wasaccepted in the fourth quarter of 2014.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a diversified manufacturer of engineeredindustrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace &Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, FluidHandling and Controls. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has twogroups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. TheEngineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforcedplastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised oftwo businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The FluidHandling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handlingequipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions forsensing and control applications. In December 2013, the Companyannounced that it has completed the acquisition of MEI ConluxHoldings.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Appeal in Calif. Suit v. Crane Co. is Pending--------------------------------------------------------------An appeal in an asbestos-related personal injury lawsuit filed inCalifornia against Crane Co. remains pending, according to theCompany's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

On November 28, 2012, the Company received an adverse verdict inthe James Hellam claim in Oakland, CA. The jury found that theCompany was responsible for seven percent (7%) of plaintiffs' non-economic damages of $4.5 million, plus a portion of their economicdamages of $0.9 million. Based on California court rules regardingallocation of damages, judgment was entered against the Company inthe amount of $1.282 million. The Company filed post-trial motionsrequesting judgment in the Company's favor notwithstanding thejury's verdict and also requesting that settlement offsets beapplied to reduce the judgment in accordance with California law.On January 31, 2013, the court entered an order disposingpartially of that motion. On March 1, 2013, the Company filed anappeal regarding the portions of the motion that were denied. Thecourt entered judgment against the Company in the amount of $1.1million. The Company appealed. By opinion dated April 16, 2014,the Court of Appeal affirmed the finding of liability against theCompany, and the California Supreme Court denied review of thisruling. The Court of Appeal reserved the arguments relating torecoverable damages to a subsequent appeal that remains pending.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a diversified manufacturer of engineeredindustrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace &Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, FluidHandling and Controls. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has twogroups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. TheEngineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforcedplastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised oftwo businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The FluidHandling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handlingequipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions forsensing and control applications. In December 2013, the Companyannounced that it has completed the acquisition of MEI ConluxHoldings.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeals in 2 PI Suits Remain Pending-----------------------------------------------------------------Crane Co.'s appeal in two asbestos-related personal injurylawsuits filed in Pennsylvania remain pending, according to theCompany's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

On February 25, 2013, a Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, state courtjury found the Company responsible for a 1/10th share of a $2.5million verdict in the Thomas Amato claim and a 1/5th share of a$2.3 million verdict in the Frank Vinciguerra claim, which wereconsolidated for trial. The Company filed post-trial motionsrequesting judgments in the Company's favor notwithstanding thejury's verdicts or new trials, and also requesting that settlementoffsets be applied to reduce the judgment in accordance withPennsylvania law. These motions were denied. The Company hasappealed.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a diversified manufacturer of engineeredindustrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace &Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, FluidHandling and Controls. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has twogroups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. TheEngineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforcedplastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised oftwo businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The FluidHandling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handlingequipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions forsensing and control applications. In December 2013, the Companyannounced that it has completed the acquisition of MEI ConluxHoldings.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Crane Co.'s Appeal in "Peraica" Suit is Pending----------------------------------------------------------------Crane Co.'s appeal in the asbestos-related personal injurylawsuits filed by Ivo Peraica remains pending, according to theCompany's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

On March 1, 2013, a New York City state court jury entered a $35million verdict against the Company in the Ivo Peraica claim. TheCompany filed post-trial motions seeking to overturn the verdict,to grant a new trial, or to reduce the damages, which the Companyargues were excessive under New York appellate case law governingawards for non-economic losses and further were subject tosettlement offsets. After the trial court remitted the verdict to$18 million, but otherwise denied the Company's post-trial motion,judgment also entered against the Company in the amount of $10.6million (including interest). The Company has appealed. TheCompany has taken a separate appeal of the trial court's denial ofits summary judgment motion. The Court has consolidated theappeals, which were heard in the fourth quarter of 2014.

Crane Co. (Crane) is a diversified manufacturer of engineeredindustrial products. It operates in five segments: Aerospace &Electronics, Engineered Materials, Merchandising Systems, FluidHandling and Controls. The Aerospace & Electronics segment has twogroups, the Aerospace Group and the Electronics Group. TheEngineered Materials segment manufactures fiberglass-reinforcedplastic panels. The Merchandising Systems segment is comprised oftwo businesses, Vending Solutions and Payment Solutions. The FluidHandling segment is a provider of engineered fluid handlingequipment. The Controls segment provides customer solutions forsensing and control applications. In December 2013, the Companyannounced that it has completed the acquisition of MEI ConluxHoldings.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Had 75 Pending PI Lawsuits at Sept. 30--------------------------------------------------------------There were 75 pending asbestos-related lawsuits filed againstAmeren Corporation and its subsidiaries, according to theCompany's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and ExchangeCommission for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

The Company states: "Ameren, Ameren Missouri and Ameren Illinoishave been named, along with numerous other parties, in a number oflawsuits filed by plaintiffs claiming varying degrees of injuryfrom asbestos exposure at our present or former energy centers.Most have been filed in the Circuit Court of Madison County,Illinois. The total number of defendants named in each casevaries, with the average number of parties being 81 as ofSeptember 30, 2014. Each lawsuit seeks unspecified damages that,if awarded at trial, typically would be shared among the variousdefendants.

"The total pending asbestos-related lawsuits filed against theAmeren Companies as of September 30, 2014, were 75."

Ameren Corporation (Ameren) is a utility holding company. TheCompany's principal subsidiaries are Union Electric Company(Ameren Missouri) and Ameren Illinois Company (Ameren Illinois).The Company's segments include Ameren Missouri and AmerenIllinois. Ameren Missouri operates a rate-regulated electricgeneration, transmission and distribution business, and a rate-regulated natural gas transmission and distribution business inMissouri. Ameren Illinois operates a rate-regulated electric andnatural gas transmission and distribution business in Illinois.AER consists of non-rate-regulated operations, including AmerenEnergy Generating Company (Genco), AmerenEnergy ResourcesGenerating Company (AERG) and Ameren Energy Marketing Company(Marketing Company). In December 2013, the Company announced thatit has completed the divestiture of its merchant generationbusiness, formerly known as Ameren Energy Resources Company, LLC(AER).

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Had $13MM Fibro Liability as of Sept. 30----------------------------------------------------------------Ameren Corporation reported that its recorded asbestos-relatedliability was $13 million, according to the Company's Form 10-Qfiling with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

Ameren Corporation (Ameren) is a utility holding company. TheCompany's principal subsidiaries are Union Electric Company(Ameren Missouri) and Ameren Illinois Company (Ameren Illinois).The Company's segments include Ameren Missouri and AmerenIllinois. Ameren Missouri operates a rate-regulated electricgeneration, transmission and distribution business, and a rate-regulated natural gas transmission and distribution business inMissouri. Ameren Illinois operates a rate-regulated electric andnatural gas transmission and distribution business in Illinois.AER consists of non-rate-regulated operations, including AmerenEnergy Generating Company (Genco), AmerenEnergy ResourcesGenerating Company (AERG) and Ameren Energy Marketing Company(Marketing Company). In December 2013, the Company announced thatit has completed the divestiture of its merchant generationbusiness, formerly known as Ameren Energy Resources Company, LLC(AER).

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Missouri Had $5-Mil. Fibro Liability------------------------------------------------------------Ameren Corporation reported that Ameren Missouri's asbestos-related liability was $5 million, according to the Company's Form10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission forthe quarterly period ended September 30, 2014.

Ameren Corporation (Ameren) is a utility holding company. TheCompany's principal subsidiaries are Union Electric Company(Ameren Missouri) and Ameren Illinois Company (Ameren Illinois).The Company's segments include Ameren Missouri and AmerenIllinois. Ameren Missouri operates a rate-regulated electricgeneration, transmission and distribution business, and a rate-regulated natural gas transmission and distribution business inMissouri. Ameren Illinois operates a rate-regulated electric andnatural gas transmission and distribution business in Illinois.AER consists of non-rate-regulated operations, including AmerenEnergy Generating Company (Genco), AmerenEnergy ResourcesGenerating Company (AERG) and Ameren Energy Marketing Company(Marketing Company). In December 2013, the Company announced thatit has completed the divestiture of its merchant generationbusiness, formerly known as Ameren Energy Resources Company, LLC(AER).

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Illinois Had $8MM Liability at Sept. 30---------------------------------------------------------------Ameren Illinois' asbestos-related liability was $8 million,according to Ameren Corporation's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2014.

Ameren Corporation (Ameren) is a utility holding company. TheCompany's principal subsidiaries are Union Electric Company(Ameren Missouri) and Ameren Illinois Company (Ameren Illinois).The Company's segments include Ameren Missouri and AmerenIllinois. Ameren Missouri operates a rate-regulated electricgeneration, transmission and distribution business, and a rate-regulated natural gas transmission and distribution business inMissouri. Ameren Illinois operates a rate-regulated electric andnatural gas transmission and distribution business in Illinois.AER consists of non-rate-regulated operations, including AmerenEnergy Generating Company (Genco), AmerenEnergy ResourcesGenerating Company (AERG) and Ameren Energy Marketing Company(Marketing Company). In December 2013, the Company announced thatit has completed the divestiture of its merchant generationbusiness, formerly known as Ameren Energy Resources Company, LLC(AER).

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ameren Reports $22-Mil. IP Trust Fund Balance--------------------------------------------------------------The balance of the IP trust fund created by Ameren Corporation forasbestos-related litigation claims was $22 million, according tothe Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarterly period ended September 30,2014.

Ameren Illinois has a tariff rider to recover the costs of IPasbestos-related litigation claims, subject to the followingterms: 90% of cash expenditures in excess of the amount includedin base electric rates are to be recovered from a trust fund thatwas established when Ameren acquired IP. At September 30, 2014,the trust fund balance was $22 million, including accumulatedinterest. If cash expenditures are less than the amount in baserates, Ameren Illinois will contribute 90% of the difference tothe trust fund. Once the trust fund is depleted, 90% of allowedcash expenditures in excess of base rates will be recoveredthrough charges assessed to customers under the tariff rider. Therider will permit recovery from customers within IP's historicalservice territory.

Ameren Corporation (Ameren) is a utility holding company. TheCompany's principal subsidiaries are Union Electric Company(Ameren Missouri) and Ameren Illinois Company (Ameren Illinois).The Company's segments include Ameren Missouri and AmerenIllinois. Ameren Missouri operates a rate-regulated electricgeneration, transmission and distribution business, and a rate-regulated natural gas transmission and distribution business inMissouri. Ameren Illinois operates a rate-regulated electric andnatural gas transmission and distribution business in Illinois.AER consists of non-rate-regulated operations, including AmerenEnergy Generating Company (Genco), AmerenEnergy ResourcesGenerating Company (AERG) and Ameren Energy Marketing Company(Marketing Company). In December 2013, the Company announced thatit has completed the divestiture of its merchant generationbusiness, formerly known as Ameren Energy Resources Company, LLC(AER).

Some facilities owned by CERC's predecessors contain or havecontained asbestos insulation and other asbestos-containingmaterials. CERC or its predecessor companies have been named,along with numerous others, as a defendant in lawsuits filed by anumber of individuals who claim injury due to exposure toasbestos. Some of the claimants have worked at locations owned byCERC, but most existing claims relate to facilities previouslyowned by CERC's subsidiaries. CERC anticipates that additionalclaims like those received may be asserted in the future. Althoughtheir ultimate outcome cannot be predicted at this time, CERCintends to continue vigorously contesting claims that it does notconsider to have merit and, based on its experience to date, doesnot expect these matters, either individually or in the aggregate,to have a material adverse effect on its financial condition,results of operations or cash flows.

CenterPoint Energy Resources Corp., (CERC) is an indirect whollyowned subsidiary of CenterPoint Energy, Inc., which is a domesticenergy delivery company. The Company's business segments includeElectric Transmission and Distribution, Natural Gas Distribution,Competitive Natural Gas Sales and Services, Interstate Pipelines,Field Services and Other Operations. The Company serves meteredcustomers primarily in Arkansas, Louisiana, Minnesota,Mississippi, Oklahoma and Texas. The company also owns a 58.3%interest in a midstream partnership it jointly controls with OGEEnergy Corp. with operations in natural gas and liquids-richproducing areas of Oklahoma, Texas, Arkansas and Louisiana.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Everest Re Has $331.1-Mil. Fibro Loss Reserves---------------------------------------------------------------Everest Re Group, Ltd., had gross asbestos loss reserves of $331.1million, according to the Company's Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2014.

The Company states: "With respect to asbestos only, at September30, 2014, we had gross asbestos loss reserves of $331.1 million,or 94.7%, of total A&E reserves, of which $263.1 million was forassumed business and $68.1 million was for direct business.

"Ultimate loss projections for A&E liabilities cannot beaccomplished using standard actuarial techniques. We believe thatour A&E reserves represent our best estimate of the ultimateliability; however, there can be no assurance that ultimate losspayments will not exceed such reserves, perhaps by a significantamount.

"Industry analysts use the "survival ratio" to compare the A&Ereserves among companies with such liabilities. The survival ratiois typically calculated by dividing a company's current netreserves by the three year average of annual paid losses. Hence,the survival ratio equals the number of years that it would taketo exhaust the current reserves if future loss payments were tocontinue at historical levels. Using this measurement, our netthree year asbestos survival ratio was 6.2 years at September 30,2014.These metrics can be skewed by individual large settlementsoccurring in the prior three years and therefore, may not beindicative of the timing of future payments."

Everest Re Group, Ltd. through its subsidiaries, is principallyengaged in the underwriting of reinsurance and insurance in theUnited States, Bermuda and international markets. The Companyunderwrites reinsurance both through brokers and directly withceding companies. The Company operates in four segments: U.S.Reinsurance, International, Bermuda and Insurance. The Companyunderwrites insurance principally through general agentrelationships, brokers and surplus lines brokers. The Company'sprincipal operating subsidiaries include Bermuda Re, EverestInternational Reinsurance, Ltd., Ireland Re, Everest Re, EverestInsurance Company of Canada, Everest National Insurance Company,Everest Indemnity Insurance Company, Everest Security InsuranceCompany, Mt. McKinley and Heartland Crop Insurance, Inc.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Pacific's Bid to Junk PI Suit Denied-----------------------------------------------------------Plaintiff Kelli Griffin, as executor of the estate of RobertGriffin, alleges that, due to the wrongful conduct of DefendantUnion Pacific Railroad Company and Defendant Union CarbideCorporation, Mr. Griffin was exposed to asbestos and, as a resultof that exposure, developed asbestos-related lung cancer.

Union Pacific filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings,contending that the action must be dismissed on the ground thatthe action violates the claim-splitting doctrine by impermissiblyseeking recovery for the same asbestos exposure alleged andpreviously litigated against other defendants in a civil tortaction filed on December 15, 2011.

Ms. Griffin opposes the Motion, arguing that the claim-splittingdoctrine is not applicable to the facts in the case. According toMs. Griffin, the claim-splitting doctrine is intended to prevent aplaintiff from filing a cause of action arising out of the samefacts against a defendant in different jurisdictions, such asfederal and state courts. Ms. Griffin notes that neither UnionCarbide nor UCC were defendants in the 2011 Action. Ms. Griffinthen argues that the claim-splitting doctrine does not apply tothe situation where the plaintiff does not assert claims againstdefendants in a second suit that were, or should have been,asserted in the first suit.

The Superior Court of Delaware, New Castle County, in a Dec. 5,2014, opinion denied the motion, holding that the Court does nothold that the claim-splitting doctrine prevents Ms. Griffin frompursuing claims against Union Pacific. The Court also found thatthe two basic principles of the claim-splitting doctrine areimplicated by the 2014 Action. The Court found that Union Pacifichas not shown that the case would have substantial overlap withthe 2011 case. Although Union Pacific argues that it wasmentioned in the 2011 Complaint, Union Pacific has not shown thatthe issues litigated in the 2011 Action did or would"substantially overlap" with those in the 2014 case.

The case is IN RE: ASBESTOS LITIGATION Limited to: ROBERT GRIFFIN,C.A. NO. N14C-01-295 ASB (Del. Super.). A full-text copy of theDecision is available at http://is.gd/DLJd2Bfrom Leagle.com.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: AM General's Bid to Junk "Pavlick" Suit Granted----------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiff Olga Pavlick filed a lawsuit against several defendantson behalf of her deceased husband John Pavlick, Jr., who died in2008 from mesothelioma. The Plaintiff originally filed hercomplaint on January 4, 2010, in the Superior Court of Delaware,New Castle County; it was removed thereafter to the U.S. DistrictCourt for the District of Delaware on March 4, 2010. The case wasthen transferred to the U.S. District Court for the EasternDistrict of Pennsylvania for multidistrict litigation management.Finally, the case was remanded back to Delaware for resolution ofthe outstanding issues. Defendant AM General, LLC, which filed amotion for summary judgment.

Judge Gregory M. Sleet of the U.S. District Court for the Districtof Delaware, in a memorandum dated Dec. 9, 2014, granted AMGeneral's motion, holding that the Court does not see how a partycould eliminate a genuine dispute of material fact bysupplementing the record with additional evidence. Thus, it isthe court's view that, aside from mere speculation andpossibility, the Plaintiff has adduced no affirmative evidencethat Pavlick's asbestos exposure was the result of his work withAM General vehicles in Fulda. This showing does not amount to agenuine dispute of material fact, Judge Sleet ruled. ThePlaintiff has therefore failed to carry her burden of productionsuch that a reasonable jury could find in her favor at trial,Judge Sleet further ruled. The court, accordingly, granted AMGeneral's motion for summary judgment.

The Court ruled that the Defendant failed to meet its initialburden of establishing prima facie that its product could not havecontributed to the causation of the plaintiff's asbestos-relatedinjury. While the defendant's representative proffered anaffidavit in which he states that it was impossible for theplaintiff to have observed valves with the name Neles-Jamesbury,the affidavit was conclusory and without specific factual basis,and thus did not establish the prima facie burden of a proponentof a motion for summary judgment.

The Court declined to consider the defendant's argument that itdid not have a duty to warn of asbestos in the insulation used onits valves, a product that it did not manufacture, as the argumentwas made for the first time on appeal.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: NY Court Denies Bid to Dismiss "Sowa" Suit-----------------------------------------------------------In an asbestos personal injury action, defendant AmericanBiltrite, Inc., moves pursuant to CPLR 3212 for summary judgmentdismissing the complaint and all cross-claims asserted against iton the ground that there is no evidence to show that itcontributed to plaintiff Eugene Sowa's injuries.

Judge Sherry Klein Heitler of the Supreme Court, New York County,in a decision and order dated Dec. 1, 2014, denied the motion,holding that the defendant has failed to "unequivocally establishthat its product could not have contributed to the causation ofplaintiff's injury."

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Kentucky Court Flips Ruling in "Fuqua" Suit------------------------------------------------------------James and Sandra Fuqua appeal from the Daviess Circuit Court'sorder dismissing their claim with prejudice. The Fuquas filed anumber of tort claims against eleven defendants in September of2004, claiming James had developed lung disease as a result ofrepeated exposure to asbestos during his 33 years of employment asan insulator. The Fuquas contend that dismissal wasinappropriate, but argue only that it should have been enteredwithout prejudice.

The Court of Appeals of Kentucky, in an opinion rendered onDec. 12, 2014, affirmed in part and reversed in part the DaviessCircuit Court's decision. The Court of Appeals affirmed thecircuit court's dismissal with prejudice of the Fuquas' claimsagainst General Electric Company, Fluor-Daniel Illinois, Inc., andMeadWestvaco Corporation. However, the Court of Appeals reversedthat portion of the order which dismisses the claims against theremaining, non-moving defendants with prejudice and remanded forentry of an order which makes the distinction.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: 2d Cir. Flips Ruling in Utica Reinsurance Suit---------------------------------------------------------------Plaintiff-Appellant Utica Mutual Insurance Company appeals from anorder of the United States District Court for the NorthernDistrict of New York, granting summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee Munich Reinsurance America, Inc., on Utica's claims forbreach of contract and declaratory judgment.

Munich is Utica's reinsurer under a facultative reinsurancecertificate covering an umbrella policy issued by Utica to GouldsPumps Inc. in 1973, under which Utica has been exposed to millionsof dollars in losses arising from asbestos lawsuits againstGoulds. The Certificate contains a $5 million limit of liability,and it obligates Munich to reimburse Utica for expense payments inaddition to losses. Munich has already paid $5 million under theCertificate, but Utica contends that Munich's liability forexpenses is not subject to the Certificate's liability limit.

Utica filed an action seeking recovery for unpaid expenses and adeclaration that Munich is obligated to continue reimbursing itfor expense payments. Munich's position is that the Certificate's$5 million limit includes expenses, and that its liability underthe Certificate has therefore been exhausted.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in asummary order dated Dec. 4, 2014, ruled that Munich is notentitled to summary judgment on the grounds relied upon by thedistrict court. Accordingly, the Second Circuit vacated thejudgment of the district court and remanded the case for furtherproceedings.

ASBESTOS UPDATE: La. Court Remands "Whatley" Suit to State Court----------------------------------------------------------------Lex Whatley, Jr., now deceased, was diagnosed with mesothelioma onNovember 11, 2010. Five days later, he filed suit in state courtagainst several defendants for state law claims of negligence,strict liability, intentional tort, premise liability, and loss ofconsortium due to Whatley's exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products. Whatley died on December 3, 2010. His wifeand children filed survival and wrongful death actions. Beforeremoval, the case had been litigated in state court for almostfour years and had an expedited trial date of December 1, 2014.

The plaintiffs filed a motion to dismiss the Veteran'sAdministration Medical Center for lack of subject matterjurisdiction and remand, or, in the alternative, to sever andremand all state law claims. Third-party defendants Plumbers andSteamfitters Local 141 and Somdal Associates also filed separatemotions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules ofCivil Procedure.

Judge Martin C. Feldman of the U.S. District Court for the EasternDistrict of Louisiana granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismissthe VAMC and the case is remanded to the o the Civil DistrictCourt, Orleans Parish, State of Louisiana, for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. Judge Feldman noted that since VAMC, whichremoved the case to the federal court, joins the plaintiffs'motion to dismiss and remand, no party has persuaded the Courtthat it has proper removal jurisdiction over the case. JudgeFeldman thus does not reach Local 141's and Somdal's motions todismiss.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contactPeter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.